Daniels v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Daniels v. State

521 So. 2d 344, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 678, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 964, 1988 WL 20057

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 9, 1988

DocketNo. 86-2531

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 521 So. 2d 344 (Daniels 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

Daniels v. State, 521 So. 2d 344, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 678, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 964, 1988 WL 20057 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant raises two points on appeal. He first contends that the written judgment entered upon his conviction on count II for possession of a controlled substance should be corrected to reflect that he was adjudicated guilty of violating section 893.-13(l)(f), Florida Statutes (1985) — a misdemeanor of the first degree — and not section 893.13(l)(e) — a third-degree felony — as it appears on the written judgment. We agree. We decline, however, to discuss appellant’s other point since we find it has no merit.

We, therefore, remand this cause for correction of the written judgment to reflect the appropriate statutory section corresponding to appellant's conviction on count II. In all other respects, the judgment and sentences are affirmed.

RYDER, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and PARKER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant raises two points on appeal. He first contends that the written judgment entered upon his conviction on count II for possession of a controlled substance should be corrected to reflect that he was adjudicated guilty of violating section 893.-13(l)(f), Florida Statutes (1985) — a misdemeanor of the first degree — and not section 893.13(l)(e) — a third-degree felony — as it appears on the written judgment. We agree. We decline, however, to discuss appellant’s other point since we find it has no merit.

We, therefore, remand this cause for correction of the written judgment to reflect the appropriate statutory section corresponding to appellant's conviction on count II. In all other respects, the judgment and sentences are affirmed.

RYDER, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and PARKER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

521 So. 2d 344, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 678, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 964, 1988 WL 20057, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniels-v-state-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack