TRAVIS R. THURSTON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Heggs V. State Resentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Travis R. Thurston appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief in which he sought resentencing under Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000). Defendant-appellant Thurston was given a fifteen-year sentence in this case to run concurrently with a fifteen-year federal sentence which had already been imposed. The fifteen-year term was a slight downward departure from the 1995 guidelines, but exceeds the maximum of the 1994 guidelines. Because the agreement was for a specific fifteen-year term and was not conditioned on the sentencing guidelines, the defendant is not entitled to be resen-tenced. See Vareia v. State, 777 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Ortega v. State, 763 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), review denied, 790 So. 2d 1106 (Fla.2001); McKnight v. State, 773 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Dunenas v. Moore, 762 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), review denied, 791 So. 2d 1096 (Fla.2001).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Castellanos v. Next Door Co., 192 So. 3d 431 (Fla. 2016)…facial challenge to a statute is -more difficult than an ‘as applied’ challenge, because the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which. the, statute would be valid.”); cf. Accelerated Benefits Corp. v. Dep’t of Ins., 813 So. 2d 117, 120 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (“In considering an ‘as applied’ challenge, the court is to consider the facts of the case at hand.”),. . Moreover, “when we review the constitutionality of a statute, .we accord-legislative acts a presumption of constitutio…
-
Wright v. City OF Miami Gardens, 200 So. 3d 765 (Fla. 2016)…d facially unconstitutional, the challenger must demonstrate that no set of circumstances exists in which the statute can be constitutionally applied.” Abdool v. Bondi, 141 So. 3d 529, 538 (Fla.2014); cf. Accelerated Benefits Corp. v. Dep’t of Ins., 813 So. 2d 117, 120 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (“In considering an ‘as applied’ challenge, the court is to consider the facts of the case at hand.”). Contrary to the majority’s decision today, this Court’s precedent emphasizes that an “[a]ct will not be invalidated as fa…
-
Beckett v. Dep't OF Fin. Servs., 982 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…pplied in the instant case, is unconstitutionally vague. A statute is unconstitutionally vague if it does not, on its face, give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what conduct is forbidden. Accelerated Benefits Corp. v. Dep’t of Ins., 813 So. 2d 117, 120 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). The standard governing this determination is more specific for an as-applied challenge. In this situation, the proper inquiry is “whether the statute can be fairly used to proscribe the defendant’s [or respondent’s] conduct…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Durwin D. Dunenas v. Moore, 762 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Ortega v. State, 763 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Vareia v. State, 777 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Moment v. State, 773 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- McKNIGHT v. State, 773 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)