Dukes v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dukes v. State

866 So. 2d 775, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 2460, 29 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 526

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 1, 2004

DocketNo. 1D03-4519

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 866 So. 2d 775 (Dukes 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

Dukes v. State, 866 So. 2d 775, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 2460, 29 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 526 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Herman E. Dukes presents a timely claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. He asserts that his appellate counsel erred by failing to argue, as trial counsel did, that the imposition of a minimum sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment pursuant to section 775.087(2)(a)3., Florida Statutes (1999), was unlawful because the information failed to allege that his discharge of a firearm or destructive device during the course of the offense resulted in the infliction of great bodily harm or death. The state concedes that Dukes is entitled to relief on this claim, and we agree. See, e.g., Gibbs v. State, 623 So.2d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); see also Jackson v. State, 852 So.2d 941 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Accordingly, the petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is granted, the sentence imposed upon Dukes is vacated, and the matter is remanded to the trial court for resentencing.

PETITION GRANTED.

ERVIN, DAVIS and BROWNING, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Herman E. Dukes presents a timely claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. He asserts that his appellate counsel erred by failing to argue, as trial counsel did, that the imposition of a minimum sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment pursuant to section 775.087(2)(a)3., Florida Statutes (1999), was unlawful because the information failed to allege that his discharge of a firearm or destructive device during the course of the offense resulted in the infliction of great bodily harm or death. The state concedes that Dukes is entitled to relief on this claim, and we agree. See, e.g., Gibbs v. State, 623 So.2d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); see also Jackson v. State, 852 So.2d 941 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Accordingly, the petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is granted, the sentence imposed upon Dukes is vacated, and the matter is remanded to the trial court for resentencing.

PETITION GRANTED.

ERVIN, DAVIS and BROWNING, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

866 So. 2d 775, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 2460, 29 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dukes-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack