Frye v. State
This text of 802 So. 2d 1223 (Frye 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.
Opinion
As the State properly concedes, the appellant’s motion to clarify illegal sentence should be granted. On remand, the trial court is directed to clarify the following: that the re-sentencing order is nunc pro tunc to the original sentencing date of May 18, 1996; that the sentence should include the sentence for count 7, the severed unlawful possession of a firearm conviction; that all sentences are to run concurrent; and that the appellant did not receive a habitual violent offender sentence as to count 3, the burglary conviction that was overturned on appeal.
Remanded with directions.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
802 So. 2d 1223, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 204, 2002 WL 54485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frye-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.