Esposito v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Esposito v. State

424 So. 2d 160, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 22065

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 30, 1982

DocketNo. 81-1041

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 424 So. 2d 160 (Esposito 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

Esposito v. State, 424 So. 2d 160, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 22065 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon review of the briefs and record on appeal, we find the appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error; therefore, the judgments appealed are affirmed. However, we remand this cause to the trial court to correct imperfections in the sentence.

The written judgment and sentence recites that appellant was sentenced to a term of five years imprisonment on count I (conspiracy to traffic in methaqualone in excess of two hundred grams) and to ten years imprisonment on count II (delivery of meth-aqualone). Since the record of the sentencing hearing indicates that the court sentenced appellant to ten years imprisonment on count I and five years imprisonment on count II, the written judgment and sentence must be corrected to conform with the court’s oral pronouncement at sentencing.

Remanded for correction of the sentence, otherwise, affirmed. Appellant need not be present for this purpose.

HOBSON, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and LEHAN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon review of the briefs and record on appeal, we find the appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error; therefore, the judgments appealed are affirmed. However, we remand this cause to the trial court to correct imperfections in the sentence.

The written judgment and sentence recites that appellant was sentenced to a term of five years imprisonment on count I (conspiracy to traffic in methaqualone in excess of two hundred grams) and to ten years imprisonment on count II (delivery of meth-aqualone). Since the record of the sentencing hearing indicates that the court sentenced appellant to ten years imprisonment on count I and five years imprisonment on count II, the written judgment and sentence must be corrected to conform with the court’s oral pronouncement at sentencing.

Remanded for correction of the sentence, otherwise, affirmed. Appellant need not be present for this purpose.

HOBSON, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and LEHAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

424 So. 2d 160, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 22065, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/esposito-v-state-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack