Pitts v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pitts v. State

787 So. 2d 195, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 6638, 2001 WL 513892

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 16, 2001·No. No. 2D99-3912·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Clifton Pitts appeals his convictions for burglary of an unoccupied dwelling and criminal mischief. We see no reversible error and, therefore, affirm. The State cross-appeals from the trial court’s failure to impose a prison releasee reoffender sentence. We affirm based on the supreme court’s recent decision in State v. Huggins, 26 Fla. L. Weekly S174, — So.2d —, 2001 WL 278107 (Fla. Mar. 22, 2001) (holding that Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act does not apply to burglary of an unoccupied dwelling).

Affirmed.

SALCINES and STRINGER, JJ„ Concur. BLUE, A.C.J., Concurs specially with opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

Clifton Pitts appeals his convictions for burglary of an unoccupied dwelling and criminal mischief. We see no reversible error and, therefore, affirm. The State cross-appeals from the trial court’s failure to impose a prison releasee reoffender sentence. We affirm based on the supreme court’s recent decision in State v. Huggins, 26 Fla. L. Weekly S174, — So.2d —, 2001 WL 278107 (Fla. Mar. 22, 2001) (holding that Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act does not apply to burglary of an unoccupied dwelling).

Affirmed.

SALCINES and STRINGER, JJ„ Concur. BLUE, A.C.J., Concurs specially with opinion.

Pitts v. State, 787 So. 2d 195, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 6638, 2001 WL 513892 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

787 So. 2d 195 (Pitts v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related