Gomez v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gomez v. State

745 So. 2d 571, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 16641, 1999 WL 1127738

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 10, 1999

DocketNo. 99-696

StatusPublished

This text of 745 So. 2d 571 (Gomez 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

Gomez v. State, 745 So. 2d 571, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 16641, 1999 WL 1127738 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

ORFINGER, M., Senior Judge.

In February 1997, appellant entered a plea of guilty to possession of a concealed firearm and was placed on probation. In November of 1997, his probation was revoked based on his admitted violations and he was sentenced to a term in prison. His guidelines scoresheet included 18 points for possession of a firearm, which he contends makes his sentence illegal, based on White v. State, 714 So.2d 440 (Fla.1998), which he says should be retroactively applied. This court has already held that White is not to be applied retroactively, see Mathis v. State, 719 So.2d 348 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), and despite appellant’s argument, we are not persuaded that the issue was incorrectly decided. See also, Smith v. State, 737 So.2d 577 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Appellant’s sentence was legal when imposed, and the trial court did not err in denying his motion to correct it.

AFFIRMED.

ANTOON, C.J., and THOMPSON, J„ concur.

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

ORFINGER, M., Senior Judge.

In February 1997, appellant entered a plea of guilty to possession of a concealed firearm and was placed on probation. In November of 1997, his probation was revoked based on his admitted violations and he was sentenced to a term in prison. His guidelines scoresheet included 18 points for possession of a firearm, which he contends makes his sentence illegal, based on White v. State, 714 So.2d 440 (Fla.1998), which he says should be retroactively applied. This court has already held that White is not to be applied retroactively, see Mathis v. State, 719 So.2d 348 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), and despite appellant’s argument, we are not persuaded that the issue was incorrectly decided. See also, Smith v. State, 737 So.2d 577 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Appellant’s sentence was legal when imposed, and the trial court did not err in denying his motion to correct it.

AFFIRMED.

ANTOON, C.J., and THOMPSON, J„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

745 So. 2d 571, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 16641, 1999 WL 1127738, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gomez-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack