¶1Appellant challenges her sentence under the Criminal Punishment Code, claiming the Code violates her constitutional rights to due process and equal protection, the protection against double jeopardy, and the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. We adhere to our previous decisions holding the Code constitutional and affirm appellant’s sentence. See Hope v. State, 805 So.2d 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Peterson v. State, 775 So.2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Hall v. State, 767 So.2d 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), rev. granted, 790 So.2d 1104 (Fla.2001); accord Hall v. State, 773 So.2d 99 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), rev. granted, 790 So.2d 1104 (Fla.2001).
824 So. 2d 195
Guzman v. State
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided June 12, 2002
District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2002-06-12
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently November 2015
5 state decisions
Relies on 790 So. 2d 1094 - Banks v. State · Kelly v. State · 775 So. 2d 376 - Peterson v. State
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 2002-06-12
View the full empirical analysis of this case →