Dirk v. State

114 So. 3d 1024, 2012 WL 4208054, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 15878
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 21, 2012·No. No. 5D06-3770·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ON REMAND

PER CURIAM.

We reconsider this matter on remand from the Florida Supreme Court. See Dirk v. State, 84 So.3d 203 (Fla.2012). We affirm Dirk’s upward departure sentence, finding that any error in the trial court’s failure to apply Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), at Dirk’s resentencing was harmless error. See Galindez v. State, 955 So.2d 517 (Fla.2007). The record demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found that Dirk had engaged in an escalating pattern of criminal conduct. Barfield v. State, 594 So.2d 259 (Fla.1992).

AFFIRMED.

SAWAYA, TORPY and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

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

Dirk v. State, 114 So. 3d 1024, 2012 WL 4208054, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 15878 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

114 So. 3d 1024 (Dirk v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Simmons v. State
273 So. 3d 116 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2019)