Skolnick v. State
775 So. 2d 1001, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 16877, 2000 WL 1872707
Opinion
Kevin Skolnick challenges his sentence, claiming that the trial court erred in imposing a habitual offender sentence as a result of a violation of probation. We agree for the reasons discussed in our recent opinion in McFadden v. State, 773 So.2d 1237 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) analyzing Welling v. State, 748 So.2d 314 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) and King v. State, 681 So.2d 1136, 1138-39 (Fla.1996).
As in McFadden we reverse and remand the case with instructions that Skolnick be sentenced according to the sentencing guidelines.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Skolnick v. State, 775 So. 2d 1001, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 16877, 2000 WL 1872707 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).
775 So. 2d 1001 (Skolnick v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
McFadden v. State
773 So. 2d 1237 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
King v. State
681 So. 2d 1136 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1996)
Welling v. State
748 So. 2d 314 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)