Dixon v. State
610 So. 2d 35, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12538, 1992 WL 355225
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Dixon v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 603 So. 2d 570 →
Opinion
We find merit in only one of the three issues Dixon has raised on appeal. The trial court sentenced Dixon to two consecutive three-year minimum mandatory sentences for offenses arising out of the same transaction. This was error. See Daniels v. State, 595 So.2d 952 (Fla.1992); Palmer v. State, 438 So.2d 1 (Fla.1983). Thus, we correct the sentences in counts eight and ten to reflect concurrent minimum mandatory sentences. Otherwise, we affirm Dixon’s judgment and sentences.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Dixon v. State, 610 So. 2d 35, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12538, 1992 WL 355225 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).
610 So. 2d 35 (Dixon v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Daniels v. State
595 So. 2d 952 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1992)
Palmer v. State
438 So. 2d 1 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1983)