JOSE ANTONIO CRUZ, APPELLANT,

v.

THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Ellis v. State, 703 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
  …cing statute specifically exempts from its application criminal defendants who are convicted of “a violation of s.893.13 relating to the purchase or the possession of a controlled substance.” See § 775.084(l)(a)3, Fla. Stat. (1993); Barber v. State, 699 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Baldwin v. State, 684 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Grene v. State, 702 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)(modified on other grounds en banc, Sept. 3, 1997). In making its ruling below, the trial court had before it the Grene decisio…
• Pittman v. State, 733 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
  …ecause “Section 775.084(l)(a)3, Florida Statutes (1995), does not permit enhanced sentencing as a habitual offender if the felony is ‘a violation of Section 893.13 relating to the purchase or possession of a controlled substance.’ ” Barber v. State, 699 So. 2d 325, 325-26 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). Accordingly, we reverse the defendant’s habitual offender sentence for the charge of possession of cocaine and remand with instructions to vacate that sentence and re-sentence the defendant on that count. Reversed and r…

Authorities Cited

• State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
• Duest v. State, 462 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 1985)