Acosta v. State

769 So. 2d 1090, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 12236, 2000 WL 1363165
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Acosta v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 798 So. 2d 809
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 22, 2000·No. No. 2D99-3343·Published

Opinion

THREADGILL, Acting Chief Judge.

The appellant challenges the revocation of his community control and the sentences imposed thereon for two counts of felony driving under the influence (circuit court case numbers 95-01878 and 96-03448) and one count of failure to appear while released on bail (circuit court case number 97-01022). We affirm, without discussion, the revocation on all counts and the sentence in case number 95-01878, but we remand for reconsideration of the sentences in case numbers 96-03448 and 97-01022. The sentences in case numbers 96-03448 and 97-01022 were imposed pursuant to the 1995 sentencing guidelines. The offenses in those cases were committed on September 28, 1996 and January 15, 1997, within the window for challenge pursuant to Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000). Because the court in Heggs determined that the 1995 sentencing guidelines were unconstitutional, we remand this case to the trial court to reconsider the sentences in case numbers 96-03448 and 97-01022. See Smith v. State, 761 So.2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).

Affirmed; remanded.

FULMER and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Acosta v. State, 769 So. 2d 1090, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 12236, 2000 WL 1363165 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

769 So. 2d 1090 (Acosta v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Smith v. State
761 So. 2d 419 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
Heggs v. State
759 So. 2d 620 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2000)