Conley v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Conley v. State

555 So. 2d 968, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 458, 1990 WL 5226

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 26, 1990

DocketNo. 88-01867

StatusPublished

This text of 555 So. 2d 968 (Conley 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

Conley v. State, 555 So. 2d 968, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 458, 1990 WL 5226 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon a finding that appellant had violated the terms and conditions of her probation the trial court imposed concurrent fifteen-month sentences 'for the three offenses involved: possession of cocaine, possession of less than twenty grams of cannabis, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The finding of violation is not contested on appeal and is hereby affirmed. However, the sentences for possession of cannabis and possession of drug paraphernalia exceed the statutory maximum of one year. See §§ 775.082(4)(a), 893.13(1)(g), 893.147, Fla.Stat. (1987).

Accordingly, we remand this case for correction of the judgment and sentence. Appellant need not be present for this purpose.

CAMPBELL, C.J., and RYDER and DANAHY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon a finding that appellant had violated the terms and conditions of her probation the trial court imposed concurrent fifteen-month sentences 'for the three offenses involved: possession of cocaine, possession of less than twenty grams of cannabis, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The finding of violation is not contested on appeal and is hereby affirmed. However, the sentences for possession of cannabis and possession of drug paraphernalia exceed the statutory maximum of one year. See §§ 775.082(4)(a), 893.13(1)(g), 893.147, Fla.Stat. (1987).

Accordingly, we remand this case for correction of the judgment and sentence. Appellant need not be present for this purpose.

CAMPBELL, C.J., and RYDER and DANAHY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

555 So. 2d 968, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 458, 1990 WL 5226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conley-v-state-fladistctapp-1990.