Benefield v. State

351 So. 2d 56, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16441
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedSeptember 21, 1977
DocketNo. 76-1198
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 351 So. 2d 56 (Benefield 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
Benefield v. State, 351 So. 2d 56, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16441 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After jury trial appellant was found guilty on two counts of bribery, one count in violation of Section 838.01, Florida Statutes (1973), and the other count in violation of Section 838.015, Florida Statutes (1975), both of which are third-degree felonies. He was sentenced to a ten-year term of imprisonment with credit for time served in jail awaiting trial.

The points relied upon by appellant for reversal have been carefully considered in the light of the record and briefs, and we hold no reversible error has been made to appear. It is necessary, however, for the case to be remanded to the trial court for correction of appellant’s sentence. It is apparent from our reading of the colloquy at the sentencing hearing that the trial court intended to impose the maximum sentence available, i. e., five-year consecutive sentences on the charged offenses1 which, we submit, would have been proper. The judgment and sentence rendered in this case shows that the trial court did not carry out his expressed intention, but imposed a single general sentence, which is improper. Darden v. State, 306 So.2d 581 (Fla.2d DCA 1975). See also Darden v. State, 330 So.2d 750 (Fla.2d DCA 1976).

Therefore, the convictions are affirmed, but the general sentence is vacated. The case is remanded for resentencing in order that the judgment and sentence may reflect the imposition of sentence announced by the trial court in open court. It is not necessary that appellant be present in court for this purpose.

BOARDMAN, C. J., and GRIMES and OTT, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Doerr v. State
351 So. 2d 56 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
351 So. 2d 56, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benefield-v-state-fladistctapp-1977.