Brinson v. State

697 So. 2d 976, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 9045, 1997 WL 441254
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedAugust 6, 1997
DocketNo. 96-2172
StatusPublished

This text of 697 So. 2d 976 (Brinson 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
Brinson v. State, 697 So. 2d 976, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 9045, 1997 WL 441254 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm defendant’s conviction, but vacate his sentence and remand for resentenc-ing.

The trial judge sentenced defendant under the mistaken belief that when sentencing defendant as a habitual offender, he was required to impose a mandatory minimum term. The imposition of a mandatory minimum is permissive. Frye v. State, 690 So.2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). As in Frye, the trial court in this case is, of course, free to exercise its discretion on remand to impose a mandatory minimum.

Affirmed in part; vacated in part; remanded.

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

Related

Frye v. State
690 So. 2d 629 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
697 So. 2d 976, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 9045, 1997 WL 441254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brinson-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.