Atterbury v. State
This text of 3 So. 3d 1291 (Atterbury v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
On Motion to Enforce Mandate
The appellant has moved to enforce the mandate of this court. In reversing appellant’s habitual felony offender sentence as illegal, we gave the state a choice on remand: “either agree to the correction of the sentence by removing the habitual offender designation on his current sentences, or the state can proceed to trial on all of the charges.” Atterbury v. State, 991 So.2d 980, 982 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Because the state failed to bring the appellant to trial within ninety days of the issuance of the mandate in accordance with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(m), we now order the trial court to enter an order striking the habitual offender designation on appellant’s current sentences in case numbers 04-12596 CF10A and 04-14123 CF10A. A copy of the order complying with this opinion shall be filed with this court.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
3 So. 3d 1291, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 2946, 2009 WL 838263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atterbury-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.