Bush v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bush v. State

843 So. 2d 1025, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 6535, 2003 WL 21002454

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 6, 2003

DocketNo. 1D02-0355

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 843 So. 2d 1025 (Bush 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

Bush v. State, 843 So. 2d 1025, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 6535, 2003 WL 21002454 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

WOLF, J.

Appellant raises two issues on appeal: I) Whether the trial court erred in resentenc-ing appellant pursuant to Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000), without counsel, and II) Whether the conviction in count III for retaliating against a witness could be properly enhanced for use of a firearm when use of a firearm was not alleged in the information. We determine that appellant is correct as to issue I and remand for resentencing. See McDonald v. State, 679 So.2d 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (holding that defendant is entitled to counsel at resentencing after prevailing on post-conviction motion). We decline to address issue II, as it was not raised in the trial court.

BARFIELD and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

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

WOLF, J.

Appellant raises two issues on appeal: I) Whether the trial court erred in resentenc-ing appellant pursuant to Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000), without counsel, and II) Whether the conviction in count III for retaliating against a witness could be properly enhanced for use of a firearm when use of a firearm was not alleged in the information. We determine that appellant is correct as to issue I and remand for resentencing. See McDonald v. State, 679 So.2d 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (holding that defendant is entitled to counsel at resentencing after prevailing on post-conviction motion). We decline to address issue II, as it was not raised in the trial court.

BARFIELD and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

843 So. 2d 1025, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 6535, 2003 WL 21002454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bush-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack