From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mckenzie v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Aug 9, 2000
763 So. 2d 566 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

Opinion

No. 3D00-1959.

Opinion filed August 9, 2000. JULY TERM, A.D. 2000

An appeal under Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(i) from the Circuit Court for Dade County, Leon M. Firtel, Judge; L.T. No. 96-33030.

Claude E. McKenzie, in proper person.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before COPE, SHEVIN and RAMIREZ, JJ.


Claude E. McKenzie appeals an order denying postconviction relief. Assuming for purposes of discussion that there is no procedural bar, defendant-appellant McKenzie is not entitled to relief. First, his claim that the trial court did not know it had discretion with regard to the mandatory minimum sentence for a habitual violent felony offender ("HVO"), see State v. Hudson, 698 So.2d 831 (Fla. 1997), is conclusively refuted by the fact that defendant was given less than the maximum mandatory minimum sentence for an HVO. Second, defendant contends that he is entitled to be resentenced on account of the holding of unconstitutionality of chapter 95-182, Laws of Florida, but he has not shown that he was adversely affected by chapter 95-182. See Johnson v. State, No. SC00-554 (Fla. July 13, 2000).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Mckenzie v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Aug 9, 2000
763 So. 2d 566 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)
Case details for

Mckenzie v. State

Case Details

Full title:CLAUDE E. MCKENZIE, Appellant v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Aug 9, 2000

Citations

763 So. 2d 566 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)