Florida District Courts of Appeal, 2003

Camilo v. State

Camilo v. State
Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided February 28, 2003 · Altenbernd, Covington, Green, Oliver
839 So. 2d 798; 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 2415; 2003 WL 554660 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Camilo v. State

Opinion of the Court

GREEN, OLIVER L., Senior Judge.

Jose 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.

We 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.

Reversed and remanded for resentenc-ing.

ALTENBERND, C.J., and COVINGTON, J., Concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.