Derusso v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Derusso v. State

651 So. 2d 226, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 2002, 1995 WL 80652

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 1, 1995

DocketNo. 94-779

StatusPublished

This text of 651 So. 2d 226 (Derusso 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

Derusso v. State, 651 So. 2d 226, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 2002, 1995 WL 80652 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Counsel for appellant has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Having reviewed the record as required by State v. Causey, 503 So.2d 321 (Fla.1987), we affirm the convictions and sentences with the exception of the habitual offender sentences imposed for misdemeanors in Case Nos. 92-3150 and 92-3920 below, which we vacate. Habitual offender status does not apply to misdemeanors, Cribbs v. State, 599 So.2d 246 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). In addition, we remand for correction of a scrivener’s error on the sentencing form in Case No. 92-3920, which incorrectly indicates the sentences in that case are to be served concurrently with sentences imposed in Gadsden County; it should indicate the sentences are to be served con[227]*227currently with those imposed in Wakulla County. We note that the consecutive habitual felony offender sentences imposed involved separate criminal episodes, see Garrison v. State, 20 Fla. Law Weekly D147, — So.2d - [1994 WL 716690] (Fla. 1st DCA December 29, 1994).

AFFIRMED in part VACATED in part and REMANDED.

ERVIN, JOANOS and WOLF, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Counsel for appellant has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Having reviewed the record as required by State v. Causey, 503 So.2d 321 (Fla.1987), we affirm the convictions and sentences with the exception of the habitual offender sentences imposed for misdemeanors in Case Nos. 92-3150 and 92-3920 below, which we vacate. Habitual offender status does not apply to misdemeanors, Cribbs v. State, 599 So.2d 246 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). In addition, we remand for correction of a scrivener’s error on the sentencing form in Case No. 92-3920, which incorrectly indicates the sentences in that case are to be served concurrently with sentences imposed in Gadsden County; it should indicate the sentences are to be served con[227]*227currently with those imposed in Wakulla County. We note that the consecutive habitual felony offender sentences imposed involved separate criminal episodes, see Garrison v. State, 20 Fla. Law Weekly D147, — So.2d - [1994 WL 716690] (Fla. 1st DCA December 29, 1994).

AFFIRMED in part VACATED in part and REMANDED.

ERVIN, JOANOS and WOLF, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

651 So. 2d 226, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 2002, 1995 WL 80652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/derusso-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack