Bruno v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bruno v. State

814 So. 2d 1231, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 5715, 2002 WL 818128

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 1, 2002

DocketNo. 4D01-939

StatusPublished

This text of 814 So. 2d 1231 (Bruno v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bruno v. State, 814 So. 2d 1231, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 5715, 2002 WL 818128 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

SHAHOOD, J.

Appellant, Nazaro Bruno, appeals from a judgment and sentence on the charge of carjacking and false imprisonment. He raises two issues, the first of which we affirm without discussion.

Appellant’s second issue is that his sentence under the Criminal Punishment Code is unconstitutional on its face as applied to him in that the Code violates the Federal and Florida constitutional guarantees regarding former'jeopardy, due process of law, equal protection of the laws, and the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. We affirm on the authority of Hall v. State, 767 So.2d 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), review granted 790 So.2d 1104 (Fla.2001); Peterson v. State, 775 So.2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); see also Bush v. State, 776 So.2d 1081 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

AFFIRMED.

GUNTHER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

SHAHOOD, J.

Appellant, Nazaro Bruno, appeals from a judgment and sentence on the charge of carjacking and false imprisonment. He raises two issues, the first of which we affirm without discussion.

Appellant’s second issue is that his sentence under the Criminal Punishment Code is unconstitutional on its face as applied to him in that the Code violates the Federal and Florida constitutional guarantees regarding former'jeopardy, due process of law, equal protection of the laws, and the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. We affirm on the authority of Hall v. State, 767 So.2d 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), review granted 790 So.2d 1104 (Fla.2001); Peterson v. State, 775 So.2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); see also Bush v. State, 776 So.2d 1081 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

AFFIRMED.

GUNTHER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

814 So. 2d 1231, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 5715, 2002 WL 818128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bruno-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack