Diaz v. State

649 So. 2d 352, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 954, 1995 WL 46453
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Diaz v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 600 So. 2d 529
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 8, 1995·No. No. 93-2670·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Arthur Diaz appeals a judgment of convictions and sentence. Finding no merit in the points raised on appeal, we affirm the convictions. Defendant’s sentence, however, must be corrected. The trial court orally imposed a three-year minimum mandatory sentence, but failed to impose the minimum mandatory on a specific count. Thus, the written sentence representing a minimum mandatory sentence imposed on each count is incorrect. As the state properly concedes, the trial court must correct the sentence to reflect that the minimum mandatory sentence is imposed on count I only. § 775.087(2), Fla. Stat. (1989). Accordingly, we affirm the convictions, vacate the sentence, and remand with directions.

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

Diaz v. State, 649 So. 2d 352, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 954, 1995 WL 46453 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

649 So. 2d 352 (Diaz v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.