Gallo v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gallo v. State

510 So. 2d 372, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1844, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9631

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 31, 1987

DocketNo. 86-1209

StatusPublished

This text of 510 So. 2d 372 (Gallo 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

Gallo v. State, 510 So. 2d 372, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1844, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9631 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In a previous appeal this court reversed as to appellant’s sentence and directed the trial court to impose a sentence within the guidelines, 483 So.2d 876. Appellant was subsequently resentenced to a period of time, including probation, which was permissible under the guidelines in effect at the time of the resentencing but which would have been impermissible under the guidelines in effect at the time of the original sentencing. In resentencing appellant under the guidelines then in effect, the trial [373]*373judge was following State v. Jackson, 478 So.2d 1054 (Fla.1985).

However, after this appeal was filed, the Supreme Court of the United States has determined that it violates the prohibition against ex post facto laws to resentence to a higher penalty under the guidelines’ law at the time of resentencing than was originally permissible. See Miller v. Florida, — U.S.-, 107 S.Ct. 2446, 96 L.Ed.2d 351 (1987). Therefore, we reverse appellant’s sentence herein and remand for re-sentencing within the guidelines extant at the time the offense herein was committed.

DANAHY, C.J., and CAMPBELL and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In a previous appeal this court reversed as to appellant’s sentence and directed the trial court to impose a sentence within the guidelines, 483 So.2d 876. Appellant was subsequently resentenced to a period of time, including probation, which was permissible under the guidelines in effect at the time of the resentencing but which would have been impermissible under the guidelines in effect at the time of the original sentencing. In resentencing appellant under the guidelines then in effect, the trial [373]*373judge was following State v. Jackson, 478 So.2d 1054 (Fla.1985).

However, after this appeal was filed, the Supreme Court of the United States has determined that it violates the prohibition against ex post facto laws to resentence to a higher penalty under the guidelines’ law at the time of resentencing than was originally permissible. See Miller v. Florida, — U.S.-, 107 S.Ct. 2446, 96 L.Ed.2d 351 (1987). Therefore, we reverse appellant’s sentence herein and remand for re-sentencing within the guidelines extant at the time the offense herein was committed.

DANAHY, C.J., and CAMPBELL and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

510 So. 2d 372, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1844, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9631, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gallo-v-state-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack