JOSE CAMILO, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 2003-02-28
No. 2D02-317
ALTENBERND, C.J., and COVINGTON, J., Concur.
839 So. 2d 798 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2003) Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases
Topics
Mandatory Minimum Sentence Retroactive Application Of Statutes

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Mandatory Minimum Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
GREEN, OLIVER L., Senior Judge.

GREEN, OLIVER L., Senior Judge.

Jose Camilo challenges the sentences imposed for his convictions for trafficking in heroin and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine, arguing that the statute that allowed for the imposition of minimum mandatory sentences for these offenses is unconstitutional pursuant to Taylor v. State, 818 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA), review dismissed, 821 So. 2d 302 (Fla.2002). The State argued that the minimum mandatory sentencing provisions were validly reenacted by the legislature and that the reenacted statute could be applied retroactively. Therefore, according to the State, Camilo’s sentence was legal.

We recently rejected the State’s argument on the reenactment issue in Green v. State, 839 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Therefore, we reverse Camilo’s sentences and remand for resentencing in accordance with the valid laws in effect at the time Camilo committed his offenses.

Reversed and remanded for resentencing.

ALTENBERND, C.J., and COVINGTON, J., Concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Sult v. State, 906 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 2005)
    …appeal on the following question, which the court certified to be of great public importance: IS SECTION 843.085, FLORIDA STATUTES (2001), UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS OVERBROAD, VAGUE, OR A VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS? Sult v. State, 839 So. 2d 798, 806 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. For the following reasons, we answer the certified question in the affirmative and hold that section 843.085 is unconstitutionally over-broad, vague, and violates subs…
  • Rodriguez v. State, 906 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
    …remaining counts. Reversed in part and affirmed in part. Conflict certified. . See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). . In so holding, we certify conflict with the Second District's decision in Sult v. State, 839 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) rev. granted, 852 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 2003). . In the absence of a requirement that the offender who wears or displays law enforcement indicia intends to deceive a reasonable person into believing that such paraphernalia is authoriz…
  • State v. Rodriguez, 920 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 2005)
    …S, J. We have on appeal a decision of the Third District Court of Appeal declaring invalid a state statute. Rodriguez v. State, 906 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). Rodriguez also expressly and directly conflicts with the decision in Sult v. State, 839 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), (3), Fla. Const. For the reasons stated in our opinion in Suit v. State, 906 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 2005), we affirm the decision of the Third District in Rodriguez. It is so ordered.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw