Brown v. State

731 So. 2d 724, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 3092, 1999 WL 140426
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Brown v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 672 So. 2d 648
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 17, 1999·No. No. 98-01051·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the sentences of three and one-half years’ imprisonment which were entered on resentencing after the trial court had granted a postconviction motion. The trial court orally imposed these sentences to be concurrent with any other sentence that Mr. Brown was serving. Unfortunately, the written sentence did not indicate that it was concurrent with “any active sentence being served,” but rather specifically listed some, but not all, of those active sentences. To avoid any possible confusion on the part of the Department of Corrections, the trial court shall modify the written sentences on remand to indicate that they are concurrent with any active sentence being served.

Affirmed with instructions.

ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and WHATLEY and CASANUEVA, JJ., Concur.

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

Brown v. State, 731 So. 2d 724, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 3092, 1999 WL 140426 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

731 So. 2d 724 (Brown v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.