Crippen v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Crippen v. State

573 So. 2d 452, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 797, 1991 WL 11661

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 6, 1991·No. No. 90-1860·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We hold that the trial court was correct in denying the appellant’s motion to suppress the evidence. Our decision is based on what we perceive as the totality of the circumstances surrounding the arrest of the appellant.

The trial court did err in sentencing the appellant to eighteen months probation on counts II and III, because these counts were misdemeanors, punishable by up to one year in prison. Sanders v. State, 351 So.2d 361 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).

We therefore affirm the judgment of conviction and reverse the sentence as to counts II and III. The trial court is instructed to resentence the appellant on those counts in accord with our opinion in Sanders.

DOWNEY, GUNTHER and POLEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We hold that the trial court was correct in denying the appellant’s motion to suppress the evidence. Our decision is based on what we perceive as the totality of the circumstances surrounding the arrest of the appellant.

The trial court did err in sentencing the appellant to eighteen months probation on counts II and III, because these counts were misdemeanors, punishable by up to one year in prison. Sanders v. State, 351 So.2d 361 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).

We therefore affirm the judgment of conviction and reverse the sentence as to counts II and III. The trial court is instructed to resentence the appellant on those counts in accord with our opinion in Sanders.

DOWNEY, GUNTHER and POLEN, JJ., concur.

Crippen v. State, 573 So. 2d 452, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 797, 1991 WL 11661 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

573 So. 2d 452 (Crippen v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related