Davis v. State

I must respectfully dissent from the views expressed in the majority opinion for several reasons.

To permit the defendant to collaterally attack the validity of a 1946 Hillsborough County criminal conviction in a court of equal jurisdiction, not specifically authorized to reopen such cases, serves merely to frustrate and destroy the sanctity of final judgments.

Although the production and use of the original judgment signed by the judge has been held to be sufficient in Florida, to prove a previous conviction, in a second offender prosecution in Florida,1 the trial court here, consistent with…