A.D. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

A.D. v. State

720 So. 2d 318, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 14720, 1998 WL 796636

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in A.D. v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 8521 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 18, 1998·No. No. 98-0072·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s adjudication of guilt for grand theft of an automobile and use or possession of drug paraphernalia. However, appellant contends, and the State concedes, [319]*319that the trial court erred when it entered a single disposition order covering both offenses. “The law is clear that separate disposition orders must be entered for each offense adjudicated.” M.L.B. v. State, 673 So.2d 582, 583 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). Accordingly, we remand with directions to the trial court to enter separate disposition orders for each offense.

AFFIRMED, but REMANDED.

DELL, STEVENSON and SHAHOOD, JJ. concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s adjudication of guilt for grand theft of an automobile and use or possession of drug paraphernalia. However, appellant contends, and the State concedes, [319]*319that the trial court erred when it entered a single disposition order covering both offenses. “The law is clear that separate disposition orders must be entered for each offense adjudicated.” M.L.B. v. State, 673 So.2d 582, 583 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). Accordingly, we remand with directions to the trial court to enter separate disposition orders for each offense.

AFFIRMED, but REMANDED.

DELL, STEVENSON and SHAHOOD, JJ. concur.

A.D. v. State, 720 So. 2d 318, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 14720, 1998 WL 796636 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

720 So. 2d 318 (A.D. v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related