Hope v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hope v. State

805 So. 2d 51, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 18271, 2001 WL 1644861

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 26, 2001

DocketNo. 4D00-2334

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 805 So. 2d 51 (Hope 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

Hope v. State, 805 So. 2d 51, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 18271, 2001 WL 1644861 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

SHAHOOD, J.

Appellant, Anthony Hope, appeals from a judgment and sentence on the charge of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver/sale. He raises three issues, the first two of which we affirm without discussion.

Appellant’s third issue is that his sentence under the criminal punishment code is unconstitutional on its face and as applied where it violates principles of uniform sentencing, due process, double jeopardy, right to appeal, equal protection, separation of powers, and cruel and/or unusual punishment. We affirm on the authority of Hall v. State, 767 So.2d 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), review granted, 790 So.2d 1104 (Fla.2001); Peterson v. State, 775 So.2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); see also Bush v. State, 776 So.2d 1081 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

AFFIRMED.

POLEN, C.J., and KLEIN, J., concur.

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

SHAHOOD, J.

Appellant, Anthony Hope, appeals from a judgment and sentence on the charge of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver/sale. He raises three issues, the first two of which we affirm without discussion.

Appellant’s third issue is that his sentence under the criminal punishment code is unconstitutional on its face and as applied where it violates principles of uniform sentencing, due process, double jeopardy, right to appeal, equal protection, separation of powers, and cruel and/or unusual punishment. We affirm on the authority of Hall v. State, 767 So.2d 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), review granted, 790 So.2d 1104 (Fla.2001); Peterson v. State, 775 So.2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); see also Bush v. State, 776 So.2d 1081 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

AFFIRMED.

POLEN, C.J., and KLEIN, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

805 So. 2d 51, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 18271, 2001 WL 1644861, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hope-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack