Barrington v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Barrington v. State

338 So. 2d 85, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15586

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 13, 1976

DocketNo. AA-226

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 338 So. 2d 85 (Barrington 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.

Bluebook

Barrington v. State, 338 So. 2d 85, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15586 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of his conviction of the crime of sexual battery (F.S. 794.011(4)(a)) and his resulting sentence of life imprisonment. Oúr examination of the record reveals that the evidence was sufficient, if believed by the jury, (which apparently it was) to sustain the conviction. (See McKee v. State, Sup.Ct.Fla.1947, 159 Fla. 794, 33 So.2d 50; Truluck v. State, Sup.Ct. Fla.1959, 108 So.2d 748; Thomas v. State, Sup.Ct.Fla.1964, 167 So.2d 309 and Tibbs v. State, Sup.Ct.Fla.1976, 337 So.2d 788, opinion filed July 28, 1976. However, the state candidly agrees that the sentence imposed exceeds that permitted by law. (See F.S. 794.011(4)(e) and F.S. 775.082, Florida Statutes 1973). Accordingly, we affirm the conviction but reverse and remand for the purpose of the trial judge correcting the sentence. It shall not be necessary for appellant to be present at the time the sentence is corrected.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

BOYER, C. J., and RAWLS and McCORD, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of his conviction of the crime of sexual battery (F.S. 794.011(4)(a)) and his resulting sentence of life imprisonment. Oúr examination of the record reveals that the evidence was sufficient, if believed by the jury, (which apparently it was) to sustain the conviction. (See McKee v. State, Sup.Ct.Fla.1947, 159 Fla. 794, 33 So.2d 50; Truluck v. State, Sup.Ct. Fla.1959, 108 So.2d 748; Thomas v. State, Sup.Ct.Fla.1964, 167 So.2d 309 and Tibbs v. State, Sup.Ct.Fla.1976, 337 So.2d 788, opinion filed July 28, 1976. However, the state candidly agrees that the sentence imposed exceeds that permitted by law. (See F.S. 794.011(4)(e) and F.S. 775.082, Florida Statutes 1973). Accordingly, we affirm the conviction but reverse and remand for the purpose of the trial judge correcting the sentence. It shall not be necessary for appellant to be present at the time the sentence is corrected.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

BOYER, C. J., and RAWLS and McCORD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

338 So. 2d 85, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15586, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barrington-v-state-fladistctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack