TRENITA BUSH, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Bush's convictions for uttering forged instruments and forgery are affirmed, but her sentence on Count I is reversed and remanded for recalculation under the pre-Criminal Punishment Code sentencing rules because that offense predated the Code's effective date.
Convictions for uttering forged instruments and forgery are affirmed, but the sentence on Count I must be recalculated under pre-Criminal Punishment Code rules because the offense occurred before the Code's October 1, 1998 effective date.
[1] When an offense occurs before the effective date of the Criminal Punishment Code, the sentence must be recalculated under the prior sentencing rules applicable at the tim…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTrenita Bush was convicted of three counts of uttering a forged instrument and one count of forgery. The offense charged in Count I occurred on August…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Uttering Forged Instruments cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Trenita Bush appeals her convictions and sentences for three counts of uttering a forged instrument and one count of forgery. We affirm in all respects but remand for resentencing on the uttering offense charged under Count I of the information. This offense occurred on August 14, 1997, prior to the effective date of the Criminal Punishment Code, October 1, 1998. Therefore, as conceded by the state, appellant’s sentence on Count I must be scored and recalculated pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.703 and 3.991.
Appellant’s arguments that the Criminal Punishment Code denies her due process, violates equal protection, separation of powers, and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, have been rejected by this court. See Peterson v. State, 775 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Hall v. State, 767 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Kendrick v. State, 769 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Seward v. State, 768 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). See also Hayes v. State, No. 1D99-2437, — So. 2d -, 2001 WL 20794 (Fla. 1st DCA Jan.10, 2001); Hall v. State, 773 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Headley v. State, 770 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).
Accordingly, we affirm appellant’s convictions and reverse and remand for recalculation of appellant’s sentence only on Count I.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED.
WARNER, C.J., FARMER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Peterson v. State, 775 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Hall v. State, 773 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Artis J. Kelly v. State, 767 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Wester v. State, 767 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Headley v. State, 770 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Al Saggese v. Dep't OF Revenue OF The State OF Fla., 770 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Hall v. State, 768 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Kendrick v. State, 769 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)