Chapa v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Chapa v. State

159 So. 3d 361, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 3474, 2015 WL 1034429

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 11, 2015

DocketNo. 4D12-3138

StatusPublished

Cited by30 cases

This text of 159 So. 3d 361 (Chapa 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

Chapa v. State, 159 So. 3d 361, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 3474, 2015 WL 1034429 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges his sentence under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act, arguing that, under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and Alleyne v. United States, -U.S.-, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013), the Act unconstitutionally allowed the judge, rather than the jury, to find appellant qualified as a prison releas-ee reoffender. We affirm, adopting the reasoning of Williams v. State, 143 So.3d 423 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014), and Lopez v. State, 135 So.3d 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014), which hold that the facts found by the judge under the Act are not elements of the offense and are within the “prior conviction” exception to Apprendi.

Affirmed.

WARNER, MAY and GERBER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges his sentence under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act, arguing that, under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and Alleyne v. United States, -U.S.-, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013), the Act unconstitutionally allowed the judge, rather than the jury, to find appellant qualified as a prison releas-ee reoffender. We affirm, adopting the reasoning of Williams v. State, 143 So.3d 423 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014), and Lopez v. State, 135 So.3d 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014), which hold that the facts found by the judge under the Act are not elements of the offense and are within the “prior conviction” exception to Apprendi.

Affirmed.

WARNER, MAY and GERBER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 So. 3d 361, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 3474, 2015 WL 1034429, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chapa-v-state-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack