Lougens Louis v. The State of Florida
This text of Lougens Louis v. The State of Florida (Lougens Louis v. The State of Florida) 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.
Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed July 3, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-2021 Lower Tribunal No. F11-30699A ________________
Lougens Louis, Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida, Appellee.
An appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lody Jean, Judge.
Lougens Louis, in proper person.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Richard L. Polin, Chief Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before SCALES, LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ.
PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 775.087(2)(a)2., Fla. Stat. (2011) (“Any person who
is convicted of a felony or an attempt to commit a felony . . . regardless of
whether the use of a weapon is an element of the felony, and during the
course of the commission of the felony such person discharged a ‘firearm’ or
‘destructive device’ . . . shall be sentenced to a minimum term of
imprisonment of 20 years.”); see also Martinez v. State, 211 So. 3d 989, 991
(Fla. 2017) (affirming appellate court’s holding that charging document,
which was allegedly defective for not providing sufficient notice of potential
punishment of “actual possession of a firearm” as opposed to “carr[ying] a
firearm,” did not constitute illegal sentence subject to correction under
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a)); Cabrera v. State, 352 So. 3d
512, 514 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022) (“[A] claim that the charging document did not
allege the facts necessary to support [the] enhanced sentence is precisely
the type of technical deficiency in the sentencing procedure that the supreme
court held is not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion.”); Brooks v. State, 969
So. 2d 238, 243 (Fla. 2007) (holding “for motions filed under rule 3.800(a),
. . . if the trial court could have imposed the same sentence using a correct
scoresheet, any error was harmless”).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Lougens Louis v. The State of Florida, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lougens-louis-v-the-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2024.