Razz v. State

OPINION ON MANDATE

WIGGINTON, Judge.

In his original appeal to this court, appellant raised the following two issues: (1) *225whether the requirement of the habitual offender statute for two prior felony convictions was satisfied when both of appellant’s convictions occurred on the same date; and (2) whether the 1989 habitual offender statute is constitutional. In Razz v. State, 576 So.2d 901 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), we reversed the first issue and certified the question to the supreme court, and thereby did not reach the second issue. The supreme court has now quashed our decision and remanded for…