Duncan v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Duncan v. State

107 So. 3d 1185, 2013 WL 614809, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 2598

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 20, 2013

DocketNo. 1D12-3501

StatusPublished

This text of 107 So. 3d 1185 (Duncan 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

Duncan v. State, 107 So. 3d 1185, 2013 WL 614809, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 2598 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant filed a postconviction motion claiming that counts two through four, for which he received five-year sentences, were to be concurrently imposed to each other, and consecutively imposed to count one, for which he also received a five-year sentence. He claims his total sentence is for ten years’ imprisonment. The state disagrees and argues that the appellant was sentenced to a total of 20 years’ imprisonment, with each count, for which he received five-year sentences, consecutively imposed to each other.

Because a number of essential documents are missing from the record provided to this Court, which the state concedes, we reverse and remand for the trial court to attach the plea agreement, the original judgment and sentence, the motion seeking additional jail credit, the order providing for additional jail credit, the second judgment and sentence, and the rule 3.800(b) motion filed by the state, to hold an evidentiary hearing, or to provide relief to the appellant. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(d).

REVERSED AND REMANDED with instructions.

DAVIS, RAY, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant filed a postconviction motion claiming that counts two through four, for which he received five-year sentences, were to be concurrently imposed to each other, and consecutively imposed to count one, for which he also received a five-year sentence. He claims his total sentence is for ten years’ imprisonment. The state disagrees and argues that the appellant was sentenced to a total of 20 years’ imprisonment, with each count, for which he received five-year sentences, consecutively imposed to each other.

Because a number of essential documents are missing from the record provided to this Court, which the state concedes, we reverse and remand for the trial court to attach the plea agreement, the original judgment and sentence, the motion seeking additional jail credit, the order providing for additional jail credit, the second judgment and sentence, and the rule 3.800(b) motion filed by the state, to hold an evidentiary hearing, or to provide relief to the appellant. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(d).

REVERSED AND REMANDED with instructions.

DAVIS, RAY, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 So. 3d 1185, 2013 WL 614809, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 2598, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duncan-v-state-fladistctapp-2013.