Cleveland v. State

75 So. 3d 404, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 19188, 2011 WL 6003303
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 2, 2011·No. No. 5D10-3435·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cleveland’s motion for mistrial and, accordingly, affirm his convictions. However, as the State concedes, the sentencing order erroneously fails to award Cleveland credit for time [405] served on Counts I (aggravated stalking with a credible threat) and IV (retaliating against a witness by threatening bodily harm).1 On remand, the trial court shall correct this error.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED for Correction of Sentencing Order.

ORFINGER, C.J., MONACO, and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

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

Cleveland v. State, 75 So. 3d 404, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 19188, 2011 WL 6003303 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

75 So. 3d 404 (Cleveland v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McGill v. State
878 So. 2d 1270 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)