Chipp v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Chipp v. State

708 So. 2d 607, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1855, 1998 WL 75251

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 25, 1998

DocketNo. 97-3429

StatusPublished

This text of 708 So. 2d 607 (Chipp 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

Chipp v. State, 708 So. 2d 607, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1855, 1998 WL 75251 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Adolph James Chipp appeals an order denying his second motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. His first claim is without merit. Assuming for purposes of discussion that his second claim is not procedurally barred, we note that on the facts of this case, defendant-appellant’s conviction rests solely on section 812.13(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1991), robbery with a weapon.¹ As a result of an amendment to the information by interlineation, the reference to section 775.087, Florida Statutes, became mere sur-plusage ² and the inclusion of section 775.087 on the final judgment was likewise surplus-age. The final judgment correctly classifies the offense at conviction as a first degree felony. See id. § 812.13(2)(b). It follows that the defendant was properly subjected to habitualization, and the rule in Lamont v. State, 610 So.2d 435, 438 (Fla.1992), has no application to this case.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Adolph James Chipp appeals an order denying his second motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. His first claim is without merit. Assuming for purposes of discussion that his second claim is not procedurally barred, we note that on the facts of this case, defendant-appellant’s conviction rests solely on section 812.13(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1991), robbery with a weapon.¹ As a result of an amendment to the information by interlineation, the reference to section 775.087, Florida Statutes, became mere sur-plusage ² and the inclusion of section 775.087 on the final judgment was likewise surplus-age. The final judgment correctly classifies the offense at conviction as a first degree felony. See id. § 812.13(2)(b). It follows that the defendant was properly subjected to habitualization, and the rule in Lamont v. State, 610 So.2d 435, 438 (Fla.1992), has no application to this case.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

708 So. 2d 607, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1855, 1998 WL 75251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chipp-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack