Cabanela v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cabanela v. State

785 So. 2d 1263, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 7738, 2001 WL 609631

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 6, 2001·No. No. 3D99-2322·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

As the State correctly concedes, since the defendant’s offenses were committed on August 1, 1996, this defendant’s offense date falls within the window period for challenging the sentence pursuant to Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000).

Accordingly, and pursuant to Heggs, the sentence imposed in this case must be reversed and remanded to the trial court for re-sentencing in accordance with the valid laws that were in effect on the date that he committed the offense.

As to all other points raised by the appellant in this appeal, we find an absence of merit and, accordingly, affirm the judgment and conviction in all respects.

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

PER CURIAM.

As the State correctly concedes, since the defendant’s offenses were committed on August 1, 1996, this defendant’s offense date falls within the window period for challenging the sentence pursuant to Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000).

Accordingly, and pursuant to Heggs, the sentence imposed in this case must be reversed and remanded to the trial court for re-sentencing in accordance with the valid laws that were in effect on the date that he committed the offense.

As to all other points raised by the appellant in this appeal, we find an absence of merit and, accordingly, affirm the judgment and conviction in all respects.

Cabanela v. State, 785 So. 2d 1263, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 7738, 2001 WL 609631 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

785 So. 2d 1263 (Cabanela v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related