Light v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Light v. State

768 So. 2d 1171, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 11744, 2000 WL 1299624

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 15, 2000

DocketNo. 2D99-4762

StatusPublished

This text of 768 So. 2d 1171 (Light 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

Light v. State, 768 So. 2d 1171, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 11744, 2000 WL 1299624 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Maurice Burel Light appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and 3.800(a). Light sets forth a number of substantive claims attacking his plea and sentence. All are without merit. In addition, Light asserts that he is entitled to relief because he was sentenced under unconstitutional sentencing guidelines, in reliance on our decision in Heggs v. State, 718 So.2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). However, Light does not allege how the unconstitutional guidelines affected his sentence, and his claim is not facially sufficient. Consequently, the order of the trial court is affirmed without prejudice to Light filing a facially sufficient claim pursuant to Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000).

Affirmed.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and PARKER and CASANUEVA, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Maurice Burel Light appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and 3.800(a). Light sets forth a number of substantive claims attacking his plea and sentence. All are without merit. In addition, Light asserts that he is entitled to relief because he was sentenced under unconstitutional sentencing guidelines, in reliance on our decision in Heggs v. State, 718 So.2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). However, Light does not allege how the unconstitutional guidelines affected his sentence, and his claim is not facially sufficient. Consequently, the order of the trial court is affirmed without prejudice to Light filing a facially sufficient claim pursuant to Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000).

Affirmed.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and PARKER and CASANUEVA, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

768 So. 2d 1171, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 11744, 2000 WL 1299624, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/light-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack