Cox v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cox v. State

799 So. 2d 339, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 14663, 2001 WL 1230825

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 17, 2001·No. No. 1D00-2784·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Richard Jason Cox, the appellant, appeals an order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence. Because they lack merit, we affirm the appellant’s first five claims. The trial court did not address the appellant’s sixth claim. However, as the appellant has now been resen-tenced pursuant to Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000), and he does not challenge his new sentence, we dismiss as moot his claim that his prior sentence exceeded the sentencing guidelines maximum range. See Edwards v. State, 780 So.2d 286 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.

ALLEN, C.J., PADOVANO and LEWIS, JJ., CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

Richard Jason Cox, the appellant, appeals an order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence. Because they lack merit, we affirm the appellant’s first five claims. The trial court did not address the appellant’s sixth claim. However, as the appellant has now been resen-tenced pursuant to Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000), and he does not challenge his new sentence, we dismiss as moot his claim that his prior sentence exceeded the sentencing guidelines maximum range. See Edwards v. State, 780 So.2d 286 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.

ALLEN, C.J., PADOVANO and LEWIS, JJ., CONCUR.

Cox v. State, 799 So. 2d 339, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 14663, 2001 WL 1230825 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

799 So. 2d 339 (Cox v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related