Culp v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Culp v. State

141 So. 3d 1279, 2014 WL 3600434, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 11234

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 21, 2014

DocketNo. 1D13-1808

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 141 So. 3d 1279 (Culp 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

Culp v. State, 141 So. 3d 1279, 2014 WL 3600434, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 11234 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Charles Culp, raises two issues in this direct appeal of his convictions and prison releasee reoffender (PRR) sentences. First, Culp argues that the trial court committed fundamental error in allowing the admission of collateral crimes evidence. We affirm this issue because no such evidence was introduced. Second, Culp argues that his PRR sentence is unconstitutional under Alleyne v. United States, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013), because the predicate facts for the sentence were not alleged in the information or found by a jury. We affirm this issue based upon Williams v. State, 143 So.3d 423 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014), and Lopez v. State, 135 So.3d 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). See also Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 228, 243, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998) (explaining that the charging document need not allege facts “relevant only to the sentencing of an offender found guilty of the charged crime” and stating that “the Court said long ago that a State need not allege a defendant’s prior conviction in the indictment or information that alleges the elements of an underlying crime”) (emphasis in original).

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, C.J., WOLF, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Charles Culp, raises two issues in this direct appeal of his convictions and prison releasee reoffender (PRR) sentences. First, Culp argues that the trial court committed fundamental error in allowing the admission of collateral crimes evidence. We affirm this issue because no such evidence was introduced. Second, Culp argues that his PRR sentence is unconstitutional under Alleyne v. United States, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013), because the predicate facts for the sentence were not alleged in the information or found by a jury. We affirm this issue based upon Williams v. State, 143 So.3d 423 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014), and Lopez v. State, 135 So.3d 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). See also Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 228, 243, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998) (explaining that the charging document need not allege facts “relevant only to the sentencing of an offender found guilty of the charged crime” and stating that “the Court said long ago that a State need not allege a defendant’s prior conviction in the indictment or information that alleges the elements of an underlying crime”) (emphasis in original).

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, C.J., WOLF, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 So. 3d 1279, 2014 WL 3600434, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 11234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/culp-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack