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

Mitchell v. State

775 So. 2d 428, 2001 WL 27551
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 12, 2001·No. 5D00-1884·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

775 So.2d 428 (2001)

James B. MITCHELL, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D00-1884.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

January 12, 2001.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Rebecca M. Becker, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mary G. Jolley, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm Appellant's sentence as an habitual offender as such sentences are not affected by the Supreme Court's decision in Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000). An habitual offender sentence is not a guidelines sentence. See Ford v. State, 763 So.2d 1273 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

AFFIRMED.

COBB, SAWAYA, and ORFINGER, R. B., JJ., concur.

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

Mitchell v. State, 775 So. 2d 428, 2001 WL 27551 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

775 So. 2d 428 (Mitchell v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Nix v. State
795 So. 2d 243 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Gordon v. State
793 So. 2d 1126 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)