Brown v. State

569 So. 2d 1380, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 8858, 1990 WL 180945
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Brown v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 524 So. 2d 730
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 21, 1990·No. No. 90-00637·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal from numerous judgments and sentences, the appellant raises several points, all related to sentencing. We find merit only in the appellant’s first point, and find no necessity to discuss the other points.

[1381]*1381In count one of the lower court case numbered 86-6020 (possession of cocaine), the appellant was sentenced as a habitual offender although he was not declared a habitual offender on that charge. Consequently, the fifteen year sentence on that charge is set aside and the cause is remanded for resentencing within the five year statutory maximum. Otherwise, the judgments and sentences are affirmed.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

FRANK, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

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

Brown v. State, 569 So. 2d 1380, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 8858, 1990 WL 180945 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

569 So. 2d 1380 (Brown v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.