Burt v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Burt v. State

791 So. 2d 594, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 11890, 2001 WL 947067

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 22, 2001

DocketNo. 3D00-2188

StatusPublished

This text of 791 So. 2d 594 (Burt 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

Burt v. State, 791 So. 2d 594, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 11890, 2001 WL 947067 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to the State’s confession of error, we reverse the trial court’s order denying the defendant’s motion to correct illegal sentence and remand for resentenc-ing. The State properly concedes that because the defendant was sentenced as a violent career criminal and committed his [595]*595crimes on February 1, 1996, he has standing to challenge the law under which he was sentenced. See Salters v. State, 758 So.2d 667, 671 (Fla.2000). Therefore, this cause is remanded for resentencing in accordance with the valid laws in effect on the date of the defendant’s offenses. See State v. Thompson, 750 So.2d 643, 649 (Fla.1999); Lee v. State, 770 So.2d 231, 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).

Reversed and remanded for resentenc-ing.

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

CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to the State’s confession of error, we reverse the trial court’s order denying the defendant’s motion to correct illegal sentence and remand for resentenc-ing. The State properly concedes that because the defendant was sentenced as a violent career criminal and committed his [595]*595crimes on February 1, 1996, he has standing to challenge the law under which he was sentenced. See Salters v. State, 758 So.2d 667, 671 (Fla.2000). Therefore, this cause is remanded for resentencing in accordance with the valid laws in effect on the date of the defendant’s offenses. See State v. Thompson, 750 So.2d 643, 649 (Fla.1999); Lee v. State, 770 So.2d 231, 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).

Reversed and remanded for resentenc-ing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

791 So. 2d 594, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 11890, 2001 WL 947067, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burt-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack