Hope v. State

805 So. 2d 51, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 18271, 2001 WL 1644861
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 26, 2001·No. No. 4D00-2334·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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

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

805 So. 2d 51 (Hope v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Guzman v. State
824 So. 2d 195 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
Mengel v. State
814 So. 2d 1210 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)