Gatlin v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gatlin v. State

741 So. 2d 1230, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 13132, 1999 WL 776217

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 1, 1999

DocketNo. 99-02660

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 741 So. 2d 1230 (Gatlin 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

Gatlin v. State, 741 So. 2d 1230, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 13132, 1999 WL 776217 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the order denying Timothy Dewayne Gatlin’s motion to correct illegal sentence as to all issues in that order. We conclude, however, that the sentence may be illegal to the extent that it requires two years of probation to be served in “PAR lockdown.” This record does not establish what was intended by this language. We are concerned that the two-year period may exceed the permissible period for a drug rehabilitation program. See § 948.03(7)(a), Fla. Stat. (1995). Likewise, we are concerned that “lockdown” and probation may not be compatible concepts. This issue was raised by Mr. Gatlin, although in a rather confusing pleading. On remand, the trial court shall address these issues in a separate order within thirty days of our mandate.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and WHATLEY and CASANUEVA, JJ„ Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the order denying Timothy Dewayne Gatlin’s motion to correct illegal sentence as to all issues in that order. We conclude, however, that the sentence may be illegal to the extent that it requires two years of probation to be served in “PAR lockdown.” This record does not establish what was intended by this language. We are concerned that the two-year period may exceed the permissible period for a drug rehabilitation program. See § 948.03(7)(a), Fla. Stat. (1995). Likewise, we are concerned that “lockdown” and probation may not be compatible concepts. This issue was raised by Mr. Gatlin, although in a rather confusing pleading. On remand, the trial court shall address these issues in a separate order within thirty days of our mandate.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and WHATLEY and CASANUEVA, JJ„ Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

741 So. 2d 1230, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 13132, 1999 WL 776217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gatlin-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack