Padilla v. State

888 So. 2d 131, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 17894, 2004 WL 2729751
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 24, 2004·No. No. 4D04-3336·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm in all respects the order summarily denying Mr. Padilla’s rule 3.800 motion to correct illegal sentence. However, one of his grounds for relief asserted that the assessment of 160 victim injury points for sexual penetration on his sentencing guideline scoresheet, resulting in a sentence of more than nineteen years for each of two second degree felonies, violated Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). As to that ground, we again certify as a question of great public importance the same issue certified by Figarola v. State, 841 So.2d 576 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), and [132]*132Hughes v. State, 826 So.2d 1070 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002):

DOES THE RULING ANNOUNCED IN APPRENDI v. NEW JERSEY, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), APPLY RETROACTIVELY?
GROSS, HAZOURI and MAY, JJ„ concur.

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

Padilla v. State, 888 So. 2d 131, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 17894, 2004 WL 2729751 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

888 So. 2d 131 (Padilla v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hughes v. State
901 So. 2d 837 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2005)