Haynecz v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Haynecz v. State

744 So. 2d 545, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 13749, 1999 WL 966733

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 20, 1999

DocketNo. 98-1686

StatusPublished

This text of 744 So. 2d 545 (Haynecz 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

Haynecz v. State, 744 So. 2d 545, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 13749, 1999 WL 966733 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals his guilty pleas and sentences for burglary and possession of burglary tools. We affirm in all respects, except we reverse the defendant’s sentences and remand for re-sentencing.

The defendant asserts the trial court improperly enhanced his sentences under the Criminal Street Gang Prevention Act, section 874.04, Florida Statutes (1997). The Florida Supreme Court has recently declared section 874.04 violates substantive due process, thereby rendering it unconstitutional. See State v. O.C., Case No. 94,-513, — So.2d -, 1999 WL 731661 (Fla. Sept. 16, 1999). Because the trial court enhanced the defendant’s sentences pursuant to section 874.04, we reverse and remand for re-sentencing.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

GUNTHER, FARMER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals his guilty pleas and sentences for burglary and possession of burglary tools. We affirm in all respects, except we reverse the defendant’s sentences and remand for re-sentencing.

The defendant asserts the trial court improperly enhanced his sentences under the Criminal Street Gang Prevention Act, section 874.04, Florida Statutes (1997). The Florida Supreme Court has recently declared section 874.04 violates substantive due process, thereby rendering it unconstitutional. See State v. O.C., Case No. 94,-513, — So.2d -, 1999 WL 731661 (Fla. Sept. 16, 1999). Because the trial court enhanced the defendant’s sentences pursuant to section 874.04, we reverse and remand for re-sentencing.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

GUNTHER, FARMER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

744 So. 2d 545, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 13749, 1999 WL 966733, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haynecz-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack