LORENZO DANIELS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 2001-04-04
No. 4D99-3814
GUNTHER, STONE and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
780 So. 2d 1042 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2001) Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND/OR MOTION TO CERTIFY QUESTION OF GREAT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE

PER CURIAM.

We grant rehearing, withdraw the per curiam affirmance previously entered in this case, and substitute the following opinion in its place.

Appellant’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed. The issues raised in this appeal challenging the constitutionality of the Criminal Punishment, Code have been addressed and rejected by this court. See Peterson v. State, 775 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Hall v. State, 767 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Kendrick v. State, 769 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Seward v. State, 768 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). As to the other issues raised in this appeal, we find them to be without merit.

We deny appellant’s motion to certify question of great public importance.

AFFIRMED.

GUNTHER, STONE and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Alonza W. Jacobs v. State, 785 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
    …PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Gray v. State, 780 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)(rejecting claim that under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), habitual offender sentence is unconstitutional — “Apprendi does not apply to enhanced sentences based on prior conviction.”)…
  • Walker v. State, 790 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
    …hat an habitual offender sentence is not subject to an Apprendi challenge. Jacobs v. State, 785 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Morant v. State, 785 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Simmons v. State, 782 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Gray v. State, 780 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Wright v. State, 780 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). We affirm Walker’s sentence because it is not in excess of that which he lawfully could have received as an habitual offender. AFFIRMED. SHARP, W., J., concurs. ORFINGER,…
  • Perez v. Dept. of Corrections, 227 F. Supp. 2d 1298 (S.D. Fla. 2002)

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw