EDWIN M. SALAZAR, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
EDWIN M. SALAZAR, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
757 So. 2d 1282
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2000)
Caution
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s rule 3.800(a) Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence, but certify direct conflict with Heggs v. State, 718 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), as to the applicable window period.
DELL, POLEN and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Nash N. Cronin, 774 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…the language in the Bradford opinion which had indicated that an intent to defraud was a necessary element of the offense defined in section 817.234(8). See Hershkowitz, 744 So. 2d at 1269. Subsequently, the fourth district in Hansbrough v. State, 757 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), receded from its statement in Bradford that an intent to defraud was a necessary element of the offense defined in section 817.234(8). The court in Hans-brough indicated that “[w]hile the state [had] not alleged intent to defrau…
-
Hansbrough v. State, 791 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 2001)…LEWIS, J. We have for review Hansbrough v. State, 757 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), wherein the Fourth District Court of Appeal certified the following questions as being of great public importance: WHETHER SECTION 817.234(8), FLORIDA STATUTES, INCLUDES A REQUIREMENT OF SPECIFIC INTENT TO DEFRAUD THE INSURER.…
Authorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 718 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)