Ricks v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ricks v. State

767 So. 2d 610, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 11713, 2000 WL 1283405

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 13, 2000

DocketNo. 3D00-1001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 767 So. 2d 610 (Ricks 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

Ricks v. State, 767 So. 2d 610, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 11713, 2000 WL 1283405 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

The trial court order denying the Motion for Post-Conviction Relief filed by the appellant Roy Milton Ricks is reversed based on the Confession of Error filed by the appellee State of Florida. Because the offense for which Ricks was convicted occurred within the applicable window period for standing to challenge the constitutionality of enhanced sentences under the Gort Act, Ch. 95-182J Laws of Fla., the enhanced sentence entered under that Act in Ricks’ case was properly challenged in his rule 3.850 motion. The case is therefore remanded to the trial court for resentenc-ing in accordance with the valid laws in effect on June 8, 1996, the date of Ricks’ offense. See Salters v. State, 758 So.2d 667 (Fla.2000); Hayes v. State, 598 So.2d 135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992).

Reversed and remanded for resentenc-ing.

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

CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

The trial court order denying the Motion for Post-Conviction Relief filed by the appellant Roy Milton Ricks is reversed based on the Confession of Error filed by the appellee State of Florida. Because the offense for which Ricks was convicted occurred within the applicable window period for standing to challenge the constitutionality of enhanced sentences under the Gort Act, Ch. 95-182J Laws of Fla., the enhanced sentence entered under that Act in Ricks’ case was properly challenged in his rule 3.850 motion. The case is therefore remanded to the trial court for resentenc-ing in accordance with the valid laws in effect on June 8, 1996, the date of Ricks’ offense. See Salters v. State, 758 So.2d 667 (Fla.2000); Hayes v. State, 598 So.2d 135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992).

Reversed and remanded for resentenc-ing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

767 So. 2d 610, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 11713, 2000 WL 1283405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ricks-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack