Capizzano v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Capizzano v. State

452 So. 2d 1046, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13832

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 6, 1984

DocketNo. 83-2204

StatusPublished

This text of 452 So. 2d 1046 (Capizzano 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

Capizzano v. State, 452 So. 2d 1046, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13832 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals his convictions and sentences- on four counts of armed [1047]*1047robbery and four counts of kidnaping. The only error suggested on his behalf concerns the sentence imposed. The defendant points out that the numbers of the counts at the sentencing hearing to which the defendant was sentenced did not correspond to the written order of sentence entered by the court. This issue is a procedural error, not a fundamental one, and we believe it should properly be first presented to the trial judge.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal without prejudice to the defendant to raise this issue by motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.

BOARDMAN, A.C.J., and DANAHY and LEHAN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals his convictions and sentences- on four counts of armed [1047]*1047robbery and four counts of kidnaping. The only error suggested on his behalf concerns the sentence imposed. The defendant points out that the numbers of the counts at the sentencing hearing to which the defendant was sentenced did not correspond to the written order of sentence entered by the court. This issue is a procedural error, not a fundamental one, and we believe it should properly be first presented to the trial judge.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal without prejudice to the defendant to raise this issue by motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.

BOARDMAN, A.C.J., and DANAHY and LEHAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

452 So. 2d 1046, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/capizzano-v-state-fladistctapp-1984.