Cuminotto v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cuminotto v. State

498 So. 2d 611, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2534, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 11189

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 4, 1986

DocketNo. 86-697

StatusPublished

This text of 498 So. 2d 611 (Cuminotto 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

Cuminotto v. State, 498 So. 2d 611, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2534, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 11189 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of conviction and the sentence in Circuit Court Case No. 85-2891 are affirmed. The judgment of conviction in Circuit Court Case No. 85-946 is affirmed, but the sentence in that case is remanded for correction of a clerical error. The charges made in Counts I and III of the information were nolle prossed by the State and defendant should not have been sentenced on those counts. Defendant’s plea of nolo contendere was entered to Counts II, IV, V and VI of the information and sentence was pronounced on those counts. The written sentence should be corrected to conform to the sentences on those counts as pronounced in open court. As so pronounced, the sentences are affirmed.

AFFIRMED. Sentence in Case No. 85-946 REMANDED for correction.

UPCHURCH, C.J., and ORFINGER and SHARP, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of conviction and the sentence in Circuit Court Case No. 85-2891 are affirmed. The judgment of conviction in Circuit Court Case No. 85-946 is affirmed, but the sentence in that case is remanded for correction of a clerical error. The charges made in Counts I and III of the information were nolle prossed by the State and defendant should not have been sentenced on those counts. Defendant’s plea of nolo contendere was entered to Counts II, IV, V and VI of the information and sentence was pronounced on those counts. The written sentence should be corrected to conform to the sentences on those counts as pronounced in open court. As so pronounced, the sentences are affirmed.

AFFIRMED. Sentence in Case No. 85-946 REMANDED for correction.

UPCHURCH, C.J., and ORFINGER and SHARP, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

498 So. 2d 611, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2534, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 11189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cuminotto-v-state-fladistctapp-1986.