Bostick v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bostick v. State

537 So. 2d 706, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 308, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 493, 1989 WL 6464

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 1, 1989

DocketNo. 88-642

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 537 So. 2d 706 (Bostick 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

Bostick v. State, 537 So. 2d 706, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 308, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 493, 1989 WL 6464 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

ERVIN, Judge.

Appellant, charged in Count I of an information with manslaughter, by hitting the victim with a motor vehicle, and in Count II with grand theft, was found guilty by the jury of the lesser offense of culpable negligence by causing injury, a first degree misdemeanor, and grand theft. Following the trial, appellant moved and was granted a new trial on the grand theft charge only, and the case as to that offense is still pending. The judgment of guilt, however, reflects that appellant was found guilty of the offense of “CT. 1, GRAND THEFT,” rather than the offense of culpable negligence. This is error because appellant was granted a new trial on the grand theft charge.

The judgment is REVERSED and the cause REMANDED for entry of a corrected judgment.

SMITH, C.J., and NIMMONS, J., concur.

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

ERVIN, Judge.

Appellant, charged in Count I of an information with manslaughter, by hitting the victim with a motor vehicle, and in Count II with grand theft, was found guilty by the jury of the lesser offense of culpable negligence by causing injury, a first degree misdemeanor, and grand theft. Following the trial, appellant moved and was granted a new trial on the grand theft charge only, and the case as to that offense is still pending. The judgment of guilt, however, reflects that appellant was found guilty of the offense of “CT. 1, GRAND THEFT,” rather than the offense of culpable negligence. This is error because appellant was granted a new trial on the grand theft charge.

The judgment is REVERSED and the cause REMANDED for entry of a corrected judgment.

SMITH, C.J., and NIMMONS, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

537 So. 2d 706, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 308, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 493, 1989 WL 6464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bostick-v-state-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack