Diaz v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Diaz v. State

804 So. 2d 620, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 430, 2002 WL 80938

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 23, 2002

DocketNo. 3D01-2183

StatusPublished

This text of 804 So. 2d 620 (Diaz 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

Diaz v. State, 804 So. 2d 620, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 430, 2002 WL 80938 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In considering a prior claim by this defendant, we determined that the trial court had correctly concluded that defendant’s sentence should run consecutive to his original prior conviction. See Diaz v. State 715 So.2d 1128 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (ordering defendant’s sentences on case numbers 93-30316, 93-33038, and 93-33837 were to run consecutive to sentences currently being served). Following remand, the defendant was charged with eight new separate felonies. In each case, defendant entered a plea of guilty. At each sentencing, the trial judge ordered that the sentence being imposed run concurrent to those sentences in the new group of eight for which sentencing had already been imposed. The trial judge did not, however, provide that any of these eight sentences be concurrent to any other prior sentences. Consequently under section 921.16(1) Florida Statutes (2001), and Bruce v. State, 679 So.2d 45, 46-47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), the trial court, here, considering defendant’s motion for post conviction relief, correctly determined that the sentences at issue should run consecutive to defendant’s prior sentences.

Accordingly, the order under review is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

In considering a prior claim by this defendant, we determined that the trial court had correctly concluded that defendant’s sentence should run consecutive to his original prior conviction. See Diaz v. State 715 So.2d 1128 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (ordering defendant’s sentences on case numbers 93-30316, 93-33038, and 93-33837 were to run consecutive to sentences currently being served). Following remand, the defendant was charged with eight new separate felonies. In each case, defendant entered a plea of guilty. At each sentencing, the trial judge ordered that the sentence being imposed run concurrent to those sentences in the new group of eight for which sentencing had already been imposed. The trial judge did not, however, provide that any of these eight sentences be concurrent to any other prior sentences. Consequently under section 921.16(1) Florida Statutes (2001), and Bruce v. State, 679 So.2d 45, 46-47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), the trial court, here, considering defendant’s motion for post conviction relief, correctly determined that the sentences at issue should run consecutive to defendant’s prior sentences.

Accordingly, the order under review is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

804 So. 2d 620, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 430, 2002 WL 80938, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diaz-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack