Ramirez v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ramirez v. State

819 So. 2d 882, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 8163, 2002 WL 1173844

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 5, 2002

DocketNo. 4D00-4666

StatusPublished

This text of 819 So. 2d 882 (Ramirez 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

Ramirez v. State, 819 So. 2d 882, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 8163, 2002 WL 1173844 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

SHAHOOD, J.

Appellant, Sanvictonno Ramirez, appeals from a judgment and sentence on the charge of possession of cocaine. He raises two issues, the first of which we affirm on the authority of Mancini v. State, 516 So.2d 36 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).

Appellant’s second issue is that his sentence under the Criminal Punishment Code is unconstitutional as applied to him in that the Code violates the Federal and Florida constitutional guarantees regarding equal protection of the law, double jeopardy, Article V, Section 2(a) of the Florida Constitution, due process of law, and the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. We affirm on the authority of Hall v. State, 767 So.2d 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), review granted, 790 So.2d 1104 (Fla.2001); Peterson v. State, 775 So.2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); see also Bush v. State, 776 So.2d 1081 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

AFFIRMED.

GROSS and MAY, JJ„ concur.

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

SHAHOOD, J.

Appellant, Sanvictonno Ramirez, appeals from a judgment and sentence on the charge of possession of cocaine. He raises two issues, the first of which we affirm on the authority of Mancini v. State, 516 So.2d 36 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).

Appellant’s second issue is that his sentence under the Criminal Punishment Code is unconstitutional as applied to him in that the Code violates the Federal and Florida constitutional guarantees regarding equal protection of the law, double jeopardy, Article V, Section 2(a) of the Florida Constitution, due process of law, and the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. We affirm on the authority of Hall v. State, 767 So.2d 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), review granted, 790 So.2d 1104 (Fla.2001); Peterson v. State, 775 So.2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); see also Bush v. State, 776 So.2d 1081 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

AFFIRMED.

GROSS and MAY, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

819 So. 2d 882, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 8163, 2002 WL 1173844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramirez-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack