Barber v. State
Opinion
Mark BARBER, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender and Deborah K. Brueckheimer, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee and Jacqueline M. Valdespino, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant's various three and one-half-year sentences in the cases appealed were to be concurrent. This is recognized by both parties to this appeal and also by the trial judge who entered an order correcting the one sentence which was not made concurrent. Because the correction was made while this appeal was pending, appellant expresses doubt that the trial court had jurisdiction. However, because the sentence was illegal as contrary to the plea bargain and the judge was merely correcting a clerical oversight, we believe that there was concurrent jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The judgments and sentences, as corrected, are affirmed.
RYDER, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and LEHAN, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
590 So. 2d 527 (Barber v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.