Foresta v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Foresta v. State

816 So. 2d 179, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 5898, 2002 WL 825942

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 2, 2002

DocketNo. 1D98-3206

StatusPublished

This text of 816 So. 2d 179 (Foresta 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

Foresta v. State, 816 So. 2d 179, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 5898, 2002 WL 825942 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Our original decision in this case, Foresta v. State, 751 So.2d 738(Fla. 1st DCA 2000), was reviewed by the supreme court on a certified conflict concerning the applicability of the Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act (Act) to the offense of burglary of an unoccupied dwelling and also on a certified question concerning a constitutional challenge to the Act. The supreme court affirmed this Court’s holding in this case that the Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act (Act) does not violate the separation of powers clause of the Florida Constitution. However, the supreme court remanded appellant’s challenge to his sentence for burglary of an unoccupied dwelling under the Act for our reconsideration in light of State v. Huggins, 802 So.2d 276 (Fla.2001). In Huggins, the court held that burglary of an unoccupied dwelling is not subject to the Act. Therefore, in light of Huggins, appellant was improperly sentenced as a prison releasee reoffender.

Accordingly, we withdraw our February 21, 2000, opinion in this case, affirm appellant’s conviction, vacate the prison releasee reoffender sentence, and remand for re-sentencing. .

AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part; and REMANDED for re-sentencing.

BARFIELD, BROWNING and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Our original decision in this case, Foresta v. State, 751 So.2d 738(Fla. 1st DCA 2000), was reviewed by the supreme court on a certified conflict concerning the applicability of the Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act (Act) to the offense of burglary of an unoccupied dwelling and also on a certified question concerning a constitutional challenge to the Act. The supreme court affirmed this Court’s holding in this case that the Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act (Act) does not violate the separation of powers clause of the Florida Constitution. However, the supreme court remanded appellant’s challenge to his sentence for burglary of an unoccupied dwelling under the Act for our reconsideration in light of State v. Huggins, 802 So.2d 276 (Fla.2001). In Huggins, the court held that burglary of an unoccupied dwelling is not subject to the Act. Therefore, in light of Huggins, appellant was improperly sentenced as a prison releasee reoffender.

Accordingly, we withdraw our February 21, 2000, opinion in this case, affirm appellant’s conviction, vacate the prison releasee reoffender sentence, and remand for re-sentencing. .

AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part; and REMANDED for re-sentencing.

BARFIELD, BROWNING and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

816 So. 2d 179, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 5898, 2002 WL 825942, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foresta-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack