Case Name: Gayson J. MILLS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2000-12-20
Citations: 773 So. 2d 650
Docket Number: No. 1D99-2159
Parties: Gayson J. MILLS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: DAVIS, J., concurs; BROWNING, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part with written opinion.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 773
Pages: 650–652

Head Matter:
Gayson J. MILLS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 1D99-2159.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Dec. 20, 2000.
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender; Joel Arnold, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General; Laura Fullerton Lopez, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for appellee.

Opinion:
WOLF, J.
Appellant raises three issues on appeal, only one of which requires discussion. We affirm as to the first and second issues without further comment. As to issue three, appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion and committed fundamental error by sentencing appellant as a habitual felony offender, thus imposing an impermissible double enhancement. We affirm.
In Evans v. State, 625 So.2d 915 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), the defendant argued that his habitual offender sentences for four counts of aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer were unconstitutional in that they resulted from double enhancements; the defendant argued that the offenses had been reclassified from third-degree to second-degree felonies based on the victims being law enforcement officers, and then again enhanced when the defendant was sentenced as a habitual felony offender. See id. at 916. Appellant essentially raises the same issue here with regard to his habitual offender sentence for battery on a law enforcement officer. In Evans, we relied on the supreme court's reasoning in Gayman v. State, 616 So.2d 17 (Fla.1993), in finding that the substantive offenses in Evans included elements that the victim was a law enforcement officer engaged in the lawful performance of his duties and that the defendant knew the victim was a law enforcement officer in addition to the other elements of aggravated assault. See Evans, 625 So.2d at 916. We concluded that the sentences there had, therefore, only been enhanced once under the habitual offender statute resulting in no double jeopardy violation. See id.
Appellant, however, relies on Oliveira v. State, 751 So.2d 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), which holds that section 784.07, creating the crime of battery on a law enforcement officer, is an enhancement statute rather than a statute which defines separate substantive offenses as we held in Evans. The fourth district, however, has now receded from their opinion in Oliveira. See Spann v. State, 772 So.2d 38 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)(en banc). In Oliveira, the fourth district had relied on Merritt v. State, 712 So.2d 384 (Fla.1998), in which the Florida Supreme Court held that section 784.07 only defined completed crimes and not attempts, making the defendant's conviction in that case for attempted battery on a law enforcement officer error. See id. at 385. In Merritt, the supreme court, after discussing the statute at issue, stated in what appears to be dicta, "Section 784.07, Florida Statutes (1995), is an enhancement statute rather than a statute creating and defining any criminal offense." Id. The supreme court in Merritt did not, however address the issue now before this court. We, therefore, reject the argument that Merritt is controlling. See also King v. State, 763 So.2d 546 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (certifying conflict with Oliveira).
While appellant's status as a habitual felony offender is simply a tool to enhance the offender's sentence, the victim's status as a law enforcement officer is an element of the crime which must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
AFFIRMED.
DAVIS, J., concurs; BROWNING, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part with written opinion.