Ghanem v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ghanem v. State

929 So. 2d 1187, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 8919, 2006 WL 1540900

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 7, 2006

DocketNo. 4D06-1745

StatusPublished

This text of 929 So. 2d 1187 (Ghanem 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

Ghanem v. State, 929 So. 2d 1187, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 8919, 2006 WL 1540900 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Gross v. State, 820 So.2d 1043 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (holding that trial court did not impose an illegal sentence when it applied the sentencing guidelines in effect at the beginning of appellant’s criminal enterprise rather than those in effect at the end, because there was no statute or other rule that addressed the issue of which guidelines to apply to a continuing criminal enterprise); Gross v. State, 728 So.2d 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (holding that convictions for grand theft charges, which were the predicate offenses for RICO conviction, did not violate double jeopardy); Hatchett v. State, 766 So.2d 499 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (stating that where appellant’s claim is that use of wrong guidelines affected his gain time, appellant must first exhaust his administrative remedies with the Department of Corrections).

WARNER, POLEN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Gross v. State, 820 So.2d 1043 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (holding that trial court did not impose an illegal sentence when it applied the sentencing guidelines in effect at the beginning of appellant’s criminal enterprise rather than those in effect at the end, because there was no statute or other rule that addressed the issue of which guidelines to apply to a continuing criminal enterprise); Gross v. State, 728 So.2d 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (holding that convictions for grand theft charges, which were the predicate offenses for RICO conviction, did not violate double jeopardy); Hatchett v. State, 766 So.2d 499 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (stating that where appellant’s claim is that use of wrong guidelines affected his gain time, appellant must first exhaust his administrative remedies with the Department of Corrections).

WARNER, POLEN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

929 So. 2d 1187, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 8919, 2006 WL 1540900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ghanem-v-state-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack