Legal Opinion

Ross v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided September 19, 1984No. 83-2137Published

1Opinion

ON REHEARING

2Per curiam

Appellant’s motion for rehearing is denied. However, we certify, pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(a)(2)(A)(v), the following question as one of great public importance:

WHETHER THE CRIMES FOR WHICH THE DEFENDANT WAS SENTENCED TO CONSECUTIVE THREE-YEAR MINIMUM TERMS PURSUANT TO SECTION 775.087(2), FLORIDA STATUTES, WERE “OFFENSES [WHICH AROSE] FROM SEPARATE INCIDENTS OCCURRING AT SEPARATE TIMES AND PLACES” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RULE ANNOUNCED IN PALMER V. STATE, 438 So.2d 1 (FLA.1983).

This identical question has been certified to the supreme court in Wilson…

3Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Wilson v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1984
  2. Ames v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1984

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API