Latiif v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Latiif v. State

794 So. 2d 734, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 13394, 2001 WL 1103268

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 21, 2001

DocketNo. 5D96-2992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 794 So. 2d 734 (Latiif 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

Latiif v. State, 794 So. 2d 734, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 13394, 2001 WL 1103268 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT

PALMER, J.

Salim Kamau Latiif appealed his sentences which were imposed by the trial court after he pled guilty to the charges of possession of cocaine with intent to sell and possession of drug paraphernalia. We affirmed his sentences, ruling that his claim that the trial court had erred in calculating his sentencing guideline score-sheet was not preserved for appellate review. See Latiif v. State, 711 So.2d 241 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). Mr. Latiif thereafter sought review in the Supreme Court and, while his appeal was pending, he was granted permission to raise an additional claim of sentencing error under Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000). In addressing the Heggs claim, the Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Latiifs judgments and sentences must be vacated, and the matter remanded to the trial court so that the State can be given the option of either proceeding to trial on the original charges or permitting Mr. Latiif to maintain his plea of guilty and be re-sentenced under the 1994 sentencing guidelines. See Latiif v. State, 787 So.2d 884 (Fla.2001). It should be noted that, regardless of which option the State decides to pursue, Mr. Latiifs additional claim of scoresheet error will become moot because, under either scenario, he will be entitled to receive a new sentencing proceeding, and thus a new scoresheet will be prepared. See St. Lawrence v. State, 785 So.2d 728 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

JUDGMENTS and SENTENCES VACATED; CAUSE REMANDED.

HARRIS and ORFINGER, R.B., JJ., concur.

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

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT

PALMER, J.

Salim Kamau Latiif appealed his sentences which were imposed by the trial court after he pled guilty to the charges of possession of cocaine with intent to sell and possession of drug paraphernalia. We affirmed his sentences, ruling that his claim that the trial court had erred in calculating his sentencing guideline score-sheet was not preserved for appellate review. See Latiif v. State, 711 So.2d 241 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). Mr. Latiif thereafter sought review in the Supreme Court and, while his appeal was pending, he was granted permission to raise an additional claim of sentencing error under Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000). In addressing the Heggs claim, the Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Latiifs judgments and sentences must be vacated, and the matter remanded to the trial court so that the State can be given the option of either proceeding to trial on the original charges or permitting Mr. Latiif to maintain his plea of guilty and be re-sentenced under the 1994 sentencing guidelines. See Latiif v. State, 787 So.2d 884 (Fla.2001). It should be noted that, regardless of which option the State decides to pursue, Mr. Latiifs additional claim of scoresheet error will become moot because, under either scenario, he will be entitled to receive a new sentencing proceeding, and thus a new scoresheet will be prepared. See St. Lawrence v. State, 785 So.2d 728 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

JUDGMENTS and SENTENCES VACATED; CAUSE REMANDED.

HARRIS and ORFINGER, R.B., JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

794 So. 2d 734, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 13394, 2001 WL 1103268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/latiif-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack