DeLoach v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

DeLoach v. State

831 So. 2d 691, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 15124, 2002 WL 31306847

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 16, 2002·No. No. 3D01-2904·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Novaton v. State, 634 So.2d 607 (Fla.1994); Hubbard v. State, 662 So.2d 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (holding that a negotiated sentence precludes appeal or collateral challenge of conviction and sentence on double jeopardy grounds apart from an allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel); see also Hurlburt v. State, 807 So.2d 687 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (holding that habitual offender sentences are not affected by the unconstitutionality of the 1995 sentencing guidelines); Hepburn v. State, 778 So.2d 448 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Novaton v. State, 634 So.2d 607 (Fla.1994); Hubbard v. State, 662 So.2d 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (holding that a negotiated sentence precludes appeal or collateral challenge of conviction and sentence on double jeopardy grounds apart from an allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel); see also Hurlburt v. State, 807 So.2d 687 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (holding that habitual offender sentences are not affected by the unconstitutionality of the 1995 sentencing guidelines); Hepburn v. State, 778 So.2d 448 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).

DeLoach v. State, 831 So. 2d 691, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 15124, 2002 WL 31306847 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

831 So. 2d 691 (DeLoach v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related