Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Huipio v. State

Huipio v. State

91 So. 3d 248, 2012 WL 2400994, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 10487
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 27, 2012
DocketNo. 4D11-1157
StatusPublished

This text of 91 So. 3d 248 (Huipio 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
Huipio v. State, 91 So. 3d 248, 2012 WL 2400994, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 10487 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Victorio Huipio appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion for postcon-viction relief. He raised two grounds for relief in his motion: (1) the trial court could not impose an upward departure sentence on different grounds after his habitual offender sentence was stricken pursuant to Lamont v. State, 610 So.2d 435 [249]*249(Fla.1992), and (2) it was error for a substitute judge to conduct resentencing. The first ground lacks merit. See Cook v. State, 866 So.2d 1291 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Regarding the second ground, the record reflects the substitute judge complied with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.700(c)(1).

Affirmed.

HAZOURI, CIKLIN and CONNER, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Lamont v. State
610 So. 2d 435 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1992)
Cook v. State
866 So. 2d 1291 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
91 So. 3d 248, 2012 WL 2400994, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 10487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huipio-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.