Camilo v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Camilo v. State

839 So. 2d 798, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 2415, 2003 WL 554660

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 28, 2003

DocketNo. 2D02-317

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 839 So. 2d 798 (Camilo 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

Camilo v. State, 839 So. 2d 798, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 2415, 2003 WL 554660 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

GREEN, OLIVER L., Senior Judge.

Jose Camilo challenges the sentences imposed for his convictions for trafficking in heroin and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine, arguing that the statute that allowed for the imposition of minimum mandatory sentences for these offenses is unconstitutional pursuant to Taylor v. State, 818 So.2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA), review dismissed, 821 So.2d 302 (Fla.2002). The State argued that the minimum mandatory sentencing provisions were validly reenacted by the legislature and that the reenacted statute could be applied retroactively. Therefore, according to the State, Camilo’s sentence was legal.

We recently rejected the State’s argument on the reenactment issue in Green v. State, 839 So.2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Therefore, we reverse Camilo’s sentences and remand for resentencing in accordance with the valid laws in effect at the time Camilo committed his offenses.

Reversed and remanded for resentenc-ing.

ALTENBERND, C.J., and COVINGTON, J., Concur.

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

GREEN, OLIVER L., Senior Judge.

Jose Camilo challenges the sentences imposed for his convictions for trafficking in heroin and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine, arguing that the statute that allowed for the imposition of minimum mandatory sentences for these offenses is unconstitutional pursuant to Taylor v. State, 818 So.2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA), review dismissed, 821 So.2d 302 (Fla.2002). The State argued that the minimum mandatory sentencing provisions were validly reenacted by the legislature and that the reenacted statute could be applied retroactively. Therefore, according to the State, Camilo’s sentence was legal.

We recently rejected the State’s argument on the reenactment issue in Green v. State, 839 So.2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Therefore, we reverse Camilo’s sentences and remand for resentencing in accordance with the valid laws in effect at the time Camilo committed his offenses.

Reversed and remanded for resentenc-ing.

ALTENBERND, C.J., and COVINGTON, J., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

839 So. 2d 798, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 2415, 2003 WL 554660, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/camilo-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack