Stuart v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stuart v. State

751 So. 2d 752, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2013, 2000 WL 227981

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 1, 2000

DocketNo. 3D99-2069

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 751 So. 2d 752 (Stuart 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

Stuart v. State, 751 So. 2d 752, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2013, 2000 WL 227981 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant appeals his sentence for robbery with a deadly weapon claiming that his sentence is illegal because it was based on the 1995 sentencing guidelines, chapter 95-184, Laws of Florida (1995), which violates the single subject rule contained in article III, section 6, Florida Constitution. Based on the Florida Supreme Court’s recent pronouncement in Heggs v. State, No. SC93851, — So. 2d —, 2000 WL 178052 (Fla. Feb.17, 2000), wherein the court held that chapter 95-184 does violate the single subject rule, we remand this case for resentencing in accordance with the valid laws in effect at the time that the appellant committed his offense.

Remanded for resentencing.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant appeals his sentence for robbery with a deadly weapon claiming that his sentence is illegal because it was based on the 1995 sentencing guidelines, chapter 95-184, Laws of Florida (1995), which violates the single subject rule contained in article III, section 6, Florida Constitution. Based on the Florida Supreme Court’s recent pronouncement in Heggs v. State, No. SC93851, — So. 2d —, 2000 WL 178052 (Fla. Feb.17, 2000), wherein the court held that chapter 95-184 does violate the single subject rule, we remand this case for resentencing in accordance with the valid laws in effect at the time that the appellant committed his offense.

Remanded for resentencing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

751 So. 2d 752, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2013, 2000 WL 227981, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stuart-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack