Blands v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Blands v. State

546 So. 2d 808, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1824, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4300, 1989 WL 85238

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 2, 1989

DocketNo. 89-0616

StatusPublished

This text of 546 So. 2d 808 (Blands 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

Blands v. State, 546 So. 2d 808, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1824, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4300, 1989 WL 85238 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court did not err when it increased appellant’s sentence to the next higher cell as provided by the sentencing guidelines. See Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)14. We also find no conflict with the sentence imposed by the trial court and the holding in State v. Van Kooten, 522 So.2d 830 (Fla.1988).

We reverse the trial court’s assessment of costs against appellant. See Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 947 (Fla.1984) and Mays v. State, 519 So.2d 618 (Fla.1988). Additionally the state concedes that the order of revocation does not coincide with the affidavit of violation of probation and that a discrepancy exists in the sentencing order as to the amount of credit for time served. Accordingly, we affirm the sentence and we remand this cause to the trial court with instructions to make appropriate corrections to the order of revocation of probation and the order of sentence.

[809]*809AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED.

ANSTEAD, DELL and STONE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trial court did not err when it increased appellant’s sentence to the next higher cell as provided by the sentencing guidelines. See Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)14. We also find no conflict with the sentence imposed by the trial court and the holding in State v. Van Kooten, 522 So.2d 830 (Fla.1988).

We reverse the trial court’s assessment of costs against appellant. See Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 947 (Fla.1984) and Mays v. State, 519 So.2d 618 (Fla.1988). Additionally the state concedes that the order of revocation does not coincide with the affidavit of violation of probation and that a discrepancy exists in the sentencing order as to the amount of credit for time served. Accordingly, we affirm the sentence and we remand this cause to the trial court with instructions to make appropriate corrections to the order of revocation of probation and the order of sentence.

[809]*809AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED.

ANSTEAD, DELL and STONE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

546 So. 2d 808, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1824, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4300, 1989 WL 85238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blands-v-state-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack