ALBERTO GONZALEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
ALBERTO GONZALEZ, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
753 So. 2d 644
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2000)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 10 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief only to the extent that the court denied appellant’s claim that his sentence is unconstitutional because the law which provided enhanced sentencing for violent career criminals, Ch. 95-182, §§ 1-7, 12, Laws of Fla., violated the single-subject rule. We remand for reconsideration in light of State v. Thompson, 750 So. 2d 643 (Fla.1999). We affirm the trial court’s order in all other respects.
POLEN, FARMER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kitchen v. State, 764 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…a single subject challenge to chapter 95-182 opened on October 1, 1995 and closed on May 24, 1997). Further, appellant may raise this challenge in a postconviction motion. See Hanford v. State, 756 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Gonzalez v. State, 753 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Appellant’s third and fifth grounds were claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. In his third ground, appellant claimed that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate and present a defense of voluntary in…
-
State v. Rambaran, 975 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…no right to a direct appeal”); State v. Charles, 827 So. 2d 1107, 1109-10 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (granting petition for certiorari where the trial court precluded the State from introducing perpetuated testimony of the alleged victim); State v. Frazier, 753 So. 2d 644, 646 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (granting State’s petition for writ of certiorari where the trial court excluded the victim’s 911 call). While the State must demonstrate that the trial court’s order is a departure from the essential requirements of the la…
-
Sweat v. State, 895 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…ly admitted hearsay under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule because there was no good faith showing that the declarant was unavailable. An excited utterance has been held to be a “firmly rooted” hearsay exception. State v. Frazier, 753 So. 2d 644, 646 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Moreover, the unavailability of the declarant is not a prerequisite to admissibility of an excited utterance. § 90.803(2), Fla. Stat.; Frazier, 753 So. 2d at 646 n. 3 (citing People v. Cepeda, 69 F. 3d 369 (9th Cir.1995)).…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Thompson, 750 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1999)