FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-1157

_____________________________

WILLIE FLOYD,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Thomas V. Dannheisser, Judge.

November 20, 2018

WINSOR, J.

Willie Floyd is what state law calls a “habitual traffic 

offender.” See § 322.264, Fla. Stat. (2014). When an officer pulled 

him over for going nearly double the speed limit, the officer 

discovered that Floyd’s license had been suspended or revoked 

some fifteen times—and that it was still revoked. The State 

charged Floyd with violating section 322.34(5), which provides 

that “[a]ny person whose driver license has been revoked pursuant 

to [the habitual traffic offender statute] and who drives any motor 

vehicle upon the highways of this state while such license is 

revoked is guilty of a felony of the third degree.” He was convicted 

and sentenced to 33.5 months in prison. 
2

By its own terms, the statute applies only if a “driver license 

has been revoked,” id., and the Florida Supreme Court has 

confirmed that the statute does not apply to those who never had 

a license in the first place, State v. Miller, 227 So. 3d 562, 565 (Fla. 

2017) (“Having a driver license that has been revoked under the 

habitual traffic offender statute, section 322.264, Florida Statutes, 

is a necessary element of a section 322.34(5) offense.”). Floyd’s sole 

argument on appeal is that he never had a “driver license” because 

he had only a “learner’s permit.” He argues concisely: “A learner’s 

permit is not a driver’s license.” Init. Br. at 7. If Floyd were correct 

on this point, he would prevail under Miller. But he is not correct.

Although Floyd (and perhaps others) refer colloquially to a 

“learner’s permit,” the Florida Legislature chose to classify what 

Floyd held as a “learner’s driver license.” § 322.1615, Fla. Stat.

Moreover, the Legislature defined “driver license” to mean “a 

certificate that, subject to all other requirements of law, authorizes 

an individual to drive a motor vehicle and denotes an operator’s 

license as defined in 49 U.S.C. s. 30301.” § 322.01(17), Fla. Stat.; 

see also 49 U.S.C. § 30301 (“‘[M]otor vehicle operator’s license’

means a license issued by a State authorizing an individual to 

operate a motor vehicle on public streets, roads, or highways.”). A

“learner’s driver license” indeed authorizes a holder to drive a 

motor vehicle, albeit with certain restrictions. § 322.1615, Fla. 

Stat. (providing that “[a] person who holds a learner’s driver 

license may operate a vehicle” subject to certain restrictions). The 

most notable restriction is that someone with a “learner’s driver 

license” may drive only when a licensed driver over 21 is riding up 

front. Id. Floyd correctly notes that the license “does not allow 

someone to drive a car by themselves,” Init. Br. at 7, but it does 

allow someone to drive a car. The statutory definition of “driver 

license” includes learner’s licenses like the one Floyd once held. 

AFFIRMED. 

B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and WETHERELL, J., concur.
3

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Lori A. Willner, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Amanda D. Stokes,

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.