C.P. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

C.P. v. State

669 So. 2d 1147, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 2650, 1996 WL 124699

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 20, 1996

DocketNo. 95-0927

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 669 So. 2d 1147 (C.P. 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

C.P. v. State, 669 So. 2d 1147, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 2650, 1996 WL 124699 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

We grant Appellant’s motion for rehearing, withdraw our opinion of November 29, 1995, and substitute the following opinion:

We affirm the trial court’s order adjudicating Appellant guilty of resisting arrest without violence and committing him to the custody of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. However, we remand to the trial court for correction of the order of disposition which failed to include the maximum term of commitment Appellant was subject to under section 775.082, Florida Statutes (1993), as required by section [1148]*114839.054(4), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994). R.B. v. State, 633 So.2d 542 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); E.J. v. State, 595 So.2d 282 (Fia. 1st DCA 1992). We note that Appellant also requests this court to order correction of the order of disposition to reflect a maximum commitment of 60 days for the offense of criminal mischief under which Appellant was charged in case number 94-880. On remand, in agreement with D.D.M. v. State, 662 So.2d 384 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), S.P. v. State, 664 So.2d 1064 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), and T.A.R. v. State, 640 So.2d 222 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), a separate order of disposition should be entered to reflect the above stated maximum term of commitment.

GUNTHER, C.J., STONE and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

We grant Appellant’s motion for rehearing, withdraw our opinion of November 29, 1995, and substitute the following opinion:

We affirm the trial court’s order adjudicating Appellant guilty of resisting arrest without violence and committing him to the custody of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. However, we remand to the trial court for correction of the order of disposition which failed to include the maximum term of commitment Appellant was subject to under section 775.082, Florida Statutes (1993), as required by section [1148]*114839.054(4), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994). R.B. v. State, 633 So.2d 542 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); E.J. v. State, 595 So.2d 282 (Fia. 1st DCA 1992). We note that Appellant also requests this court to order correction of the order of disposition to reflect a maximum commitment of 60 days for the offense of criminal mischief under which Appellant was charged in case number 94-880. On remand, in agreement with D.D.M. v. State, 662 So.2d 384 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), S.P. v. State, 664 So.2d 1064 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), and T.A.R. v. State, 640 So.2d 222 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), a separate order of disposition should be entered to reflect the above stated maximum term of commitment.

GUNTHER, C.J., STONE and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

669 So. 2d 1147, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 2650, 1996 WL 124699, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cp-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack