Bridges v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bridges v. State

750 So. 2d 782, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2309

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 8, 2000

DocketNo. 3D99-2220

StatusPublished

This text of 750 So. 2d 782 (Bridges 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

Bridges v. State, 750 So. 2d 782, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2309 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

[783]*783 CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

Upon the State’s proper confession of error, we reverse the denial of defendant’s 3.800 motion and remand for resentencing. See Wick v. State, 651 So.2d 765 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)(combination of probation and prison term must not exceed statutory maximum); see also Martell v. State, 676 So.2d 1030, 1031 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)(Rule 3.850, not Rule 3.800 is “the proper means to challenge a court’s failure to order a presentence investigation”).

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

[783]*783 CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

Upon the State’s proper confession of error, we reverse the denial of defendant’s 3.800 motion and remand for resentencing. See Wick v. State, 651 So.2d 765 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)(combination of probation and prison term must not exceed statutory maximum); see also Martell v. State, 676 So.2d 1030, 1031 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)(Rule 3.850, not Rule 3.800 is “the proper means to challenge a court’s failure to order a presentence investigation”).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

750 So. 2d 782, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bridges-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack