Romero v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Romero v. State

763 So. 2d 1138, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 47, 2000 WL 4775

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 5, 2000

DocketNo. 98-2811

StatusPublished

This text of 763 So. 2d 1138 (Romero 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

Romero v. State, 763 So. 2d 1138, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 47, 2000 WL 4775 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

David Romero appeals his conviction on charges of burglary of a dwelling and dealing in stolen property. We are unpersuaded by Romero’s arguments and affirm his judgment.

The state cross-appeals the trial court’s refusal to sentence Romero under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act because the court concluded burglary of an unoccupied structure did not fit within the felonies to which the Act applied. We previously held that for purposes of sentencing under the Act, the question of whether a dwelling was occupied or unoccupied was of no consequence. See Scott v. State, 721 So.2d 1245 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). However, this court recently receded from Scott in State v. Huggins, 744 So.2d 1215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (en banc). Pursuant to Huggins, we affirm Romero’s sentence.

AFFIRMED.

POLEN, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

David Romero appeals his conviction on charges of burglary of a dwelling and dealing in stolen property. We are unpersuaded by Romero’s arguments and affirm his judgment.

The state cross-appeals the trial court’s refusal to sentence Romero under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act because the court concluded burglary of an unoccupied structure did not fit within the felonies to which the Act applied. We previously held that for purposes of sentencing under the Act, the question of whether a dwelling was occupied or unoccupied was of no consequence. See Scott v. State, 721 So.2d 1245 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). However, this court recently receded from Scott in State v. Huggins, 744 So.2d 1215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (en banc). Pursuant to Huggins, we affirm Romero’s sentence.

AFFIRMED.

POLEN, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

763 So. 2d 1138, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 47, 2000 WL 4775, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/romero-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack