Urruchurtu v. State

Alberto URRUCHURTU, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided November 5, 2003.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2003-11-05

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently April 2004

4 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“and thus was not affected by any infirmity in chapter 99-188,”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Wright v. State

“or by enactment of chapter 2002-212, Laws of Florida.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Wright v. State

Relies on 818 So. 2d 544 - Taylor v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2003-11-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Alberto Urruchurtu, in proper person.

¶2 *388 Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, for appellee.

¶3Before COPE, SHEVIN, and WELLS, JJ.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5The order under review is affirmed. See § 893.135(1)(j), Fla. Stat. (2000). The defendant was charged with, and ultimately convicted of and sentenced for, a crime that he committed on June 20, 2001. That crime and the minimum mandatory sentence that it carried, were first created by chapter 2000-320, section 4, Laws of Florida, page 3497 and became effective October 1, 2000. This amendment was not part of chapter 99-188, Laws of Florida but added entirely new provisions to section 893.135 and thus was not affected by any infirmity in chapter 99-188, by the decision in Taylor v. State,818 So.2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), or by enactment of chapter 2002-212, Laws of Florida.