Bowen v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bowen v. State

415 So. 2d 142, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20298

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 16, 1982

DocketNo. 82-160

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 415 So. 2d 142 (Bowen 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

Bowen v. State, 415 So. 2d 142, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20298 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., Judge.

Appellant appeals from an order denying his motion for post conviction relief. Appellant was convicted and sentenced on two counts of battery on a law enforcement officer. On count one, appellant was committed to the Department of Corrections as a youthful offender¹ for four years, two years imprisonment followed by two years in a community control program. On count two appellant was placed on probation for five years, to run consecutively with the sentence under count one.

Appellant contends that under Villery v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 396 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1981), his sentence on count one was an illegal split sentence. We disagree and AFFIRM the order based on the reasoning of Riley v. State, 407 So.2d 967 (Fla.2d DCA 1981).

AFFIRMED.

DAUKSCH, C. J., and COBB, J., concur.

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

FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., Judge.

Appellant appeals from an order denying his motion for post conviction relief. Appellant was convicted and sentenced on two counts of battery on a law enforcement officer. On count one, appellant was committed to the Department of Corrections as a youthful offender¹ for four years, two years imprisonment followed by two years in a community control program. On count two appellant was placed on probation for five years, to run consecutively with the sentence under count one.

Appellant contends that under Villery v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 396 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1981), his sentence on count one was an illegal split sentence. We disagree and AFFIRM the order based on the reasoning of Riley v. State, 407 So.2d 967 (Fla.2d DCA 1981).

AFFIRMED.

DAUKSCH, C. J., and COBB, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

415 So. 2d 142, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowen-v-state-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack