Burke v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Burke v. State

640 So. 2d 1222, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 7765, 1994 WL 406719

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 5, 1994

DocketNo. 93-2286

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 640 So. 2d 1222 (Burke 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

Burke v. State, 640 So. 2d 1222, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 7765, 1994 WL 406719 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Christopher Burke appeals from the judgment and sentences imposed following a jury trial. We find no merit to his claim that the trial court committed error during the trial. Burke’s objection to the requirement that he pay the cost of transcribing certain depositions is also without merit. Sumter v. State, 570 So.2d 1039, 1041 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), review dismissed, 583 So.2d 1037 (Fla.1991); Posey v. State, 501 So.2d 192, 194 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). We do agree, however, that he could not be convicted and sentenced to both possession of cannabis with intent to sell and possession of more than 20 grams of that same cannabis. See Pasley v. State, 625 So.2d 1303 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for resentencing. Because Burke will be resentenced, we need not address his argument regarding the discrepancies between his written conditions of probation and the court’s oral pronouncement.¹

REVERSED and REMANDED.

W. SHARP, GOSHORN and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Christopher Burke appeals from the judgment and sentences imposed following a jury trial. We find no merit to his claim that the trial court committed error during the trial. Burke’s objection to the requirement that he pay the cost of transcribing certain depositions is also without merit. Sumter v. State, 570 So.2d 1039, 1041 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), review dismissed, 583 So.2d 1037 (Fla.1991); Posey v. State, 501 So.2d 192, 194 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). We do agree, however, that he could not be convicted and sentenced to both possession of cannabis with intent to sell and possession of more than 20 grams of that same cannabis. See Pasley v. State, 625 So.2d 1303 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for resentencing. Because Burke will be resentenced, we need not address his argument regarding the discrepancies between his written conditions of probation and the court’s oral pronouncement.¹

REVERSED and REMANDED.

W. SHARP, GOSHORN and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

640 So. 2d 1222, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 7765, 1994 WL 406719, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burke-v-state-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack