Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

839 So. 2d 798

Camilo v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided February 28, 2003

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2003-02-28

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently June 2005

3 state decisions

Relies on 821 So. 2d 263 - Amendments to Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Forms—Stepparent Adoption Forms · 818 So. 2d 544 - Taylor v. State · 839 So. 2d 748 - Green v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2003-02-28

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

GREEN, OLIVER L., Senior Judge.

¶1Jose Camilo challenges the sentences imposed for his convictions for trafficking in heroin and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine, arguing that the statute that allowed for the imposition of minimum mandatory sentences for these offenses is unconstitutional pursuant to Taylor v. State, 818 So.2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA), review dismissed, 821 So.2d 302 (Fla.2002). The State argued that the minimum mandatory sentencing provisions were validly reenacted by the legislature and that the reenacted statute could be applied retroactively. Therefore, according to the State, Camilo’s sentence was legal.

¶2We recently rejected the State’s argument on the reenactment issue in Green v. State, 839 So.2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Therefore, we reverse Camilo’s sentences and remand for resentencing in accordance with the valid laws in effect at the time Camilo committed his offenses.

¶3Reversed and remanded for resentenc-ing.

ALTENBERND, C.J., and COVINGTON, J., Concur.
/839/so2d/798 · .json · Public domain