Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Skolnick v. State

Skolnick v. State

775 So. 2d 1001, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 16877, 2000 WL 1872707
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 27, 2000
DocketNo. 4D00-3053
StatusPublished

This text of 775 So. 2d 1001 (Skolnick 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
Skolnick v. State, 775 So. 2d 1001, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 16877, 2000 WL 1872707 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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.

POLEN, STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
775 So. 2d 1001, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 16877, 2000 WL 1872707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skolnick-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.