Dygert v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dygert v. State

224 So. 2d 367, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5506

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 17, 1969

DocketNo. 68-939

StatusPublished

This text of 224 So. 2d 367 (Dygert 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

Dygert v. State, 224 So. 2d 367, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5506 (Fla. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was informed against by an information containing three counts: (1) uttering a forged instrument; (2) buying, receiving or concealing stolen property; (3) possession of stolen driver’s license. He was tried non-jury and adjudicated guilty on all three counts, and sentenced apparently only on the count of uttering.

On this appeal, the appellant has preserved for review the sufficiency of the evidence to support the convictions on the' three counts, and the trial court’s ruling on the motion to suppress. We find no merit in these contentions. See: Hazen v. Mayo, Fla.1956, 90 So.2d 123; Casso v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 182 So.2d 252; State v. Young, Fla.1968, 217 So.2d 567.

The court, of its own motion, has noted that there is ambiguity in the sentence rendered, being unable to determine whether appellant was sentenced to three years upon conviction on each count to run concurrently, whether he was sentenced to one year on each count to run consecutively, or whether he was only sentenced on the conviction as to the uttering count. Therefore, this matter is réturned to the trial court with instructions to resolve the ambiguity in the sentence rendered on the several adjudications.

Affirmed with instructions.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was informed against by an information containing three counts: (1) uttering a forged instrument; (2) buying, receiving or concealing stolen property; (3) possession of stolen driver’s license. He was tried non-jury and adjudicated guilty on all three counts, and sentenced apparently only on the count of uttering.

On this appeal, the appellant has preserved for review the sufficiency of the evidence to support the convictions on the' three counts, and the trial court’s ruling on the motion to suppress. We find no merit in these contentions. See: Hazen v. Mayo, Fla.1956, 90 So.2d 123; Casso v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 182 So.2d 252; State v. Young, Fla.1968, 217 So.2d 567.

The court, of its own motion, has noted that there is ambiguity in the sentence rendered, being unable to determine whether appellant was sentenced to three years upon conviction on each count to run concurrently, whether he was sentenced to one year on each count to run consecutively, or whether he was only sentenced on the conviction as to the uttering count. Therefore, this matter is réturned to the trial court with instructions to resolve the ambiguity in the sentence rendered on the several adjudications.

Affirmed with instructions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 So. 2d 367, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5506, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dygert-v-state-fladistctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack