Bayliff v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bayliff v. State

610 So. 2d 731, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 13749, 1992 WL 385459

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 30, 1992

DocketNo. 91-3429

StatusPublished

This text of 610 So. 2d 731 (Bayliff 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

Bayliff v. State, 610 So. 2d 731, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 13749, 1992 WL 385459 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this case the jury found defendant guilty of all charges except Count III, depriving an officer of his means of protection. At sentencing, the trial court nevertheless imposed a concurrent sentence for this offense. The state concedes, and we agree, that the trial court erred in so doing.

We reverse the sentence and remand, therefore, with instructions to correct this obvious oversight. We affirm on all other issues.

ANSTEAD, LETTS and FARMER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this case the jury found defendant guilty of all charges except Count III, depriving an officer of his means of protection. At sentencing, the trial court nevertheless imposed a concurrent sentence for this offense. The state concedes, and we agree, that the trial court erred in so doing.

We reverse the sentence and remand, therefore, with instructions to correct this obvious oversight. We affirm on all other issues.

ANSTEAD, LETTS and FARMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

610 So. 2d 731, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 13749, 1992 WL 385459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bayliff-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.