Kaymore v. State

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT DARRYL KAYMORE, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 2D03-919 Opinion filed June 11, 2003. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Kevin J. Carey, Judge. SILBERMAN, Judge. Darryl Kaymore argues that his habitual violent felony offender sentence with a ten-year minimum mandatory is illegal under Taylor v. State, 818 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), which held chapter 99-188, Laws of Florida, unconstitutional. However, his claim is facially insufficient because he has failed to allege the date of his offenses or how he was affected by the amendments to the violent career criminal statute contained in chapter 99-188. See Pruitte v. State, 28 Fla. L. Weekly D1183 (Fla. 2d DCA May 16, 2003); Glover v. State, 28 Fla. L. Weekly D1117 (Fla. 2d DCA May 7, 2003). Accordingly, we affirm without prejudice to any right Kaymore may have to file a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion raising these claims. Affirmed. DAVIS and COVINGTON, JJ., Concur. -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.