Huipio v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Huipio v. State

91 So. 3d 248, 2012 WL 2400994, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 10487

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 27, 2012·No. No. 4D11-1157·Published

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] (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

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] (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.

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

Pincite

91 So. 3d 248 (Huipio v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related