Gomes v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gomes v. State

164 So. 3d 1252, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 8567, 2015 WL 3511221

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 5, 2015

DocketNo. 5D14-3867

StatusPublished

This text of 164 So. 3d 1252 (Gomes 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

Gomes v. State, 164 So. 3d 1252, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 8567, 2015 WL 3511221 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Brian Gomes seeks review of the sentences imposed on October 14, 2014 after he was resentenced pursuant to a successful Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion. As a result of an apparent oversight by the trial court, the new sentencing order fails to award Gomes credit for time served on Count II in case number 2011-CF-632 and Count II in case number 2011-CF-633. On remand, the trial court is directed to remedy these omissions.¹ Gomes also argues that his presence was required at resentencing. Under the facts of this case, any error was harmless. See Jordan v. State, 143 So.3d 335, 340 (Fla.2014) (recognizing that defendant’s absence from resentencing proceeding was harmless as defendant was serving [1253]*1253longer sentences on counts not subject to resentencing and thus suffered no practical consequence as result of being resen-tenced in his absence).

AFFIRMED; • REMANDED for trial court to correct sentencing order omissions.

PALMER, EVANDER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Brian Gomes seeks review of the sentences imposed on October 14, 2014 after he was resentenced pursuant to a successful Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion. As a result of an apparent oversight by the trial court, the new sentencing order fails to award Gomes credit for time served on Count II in case number 2011-CF-632 and Count II in case number 2011-CF-633. On remand, the trial court is directed to remedy these omissions.¹ Gomes also argues that his presence was required at resentencing. Under the facts of this case, any error was harmless. See Jordan v. State, 143 So.3d 335, 340 (Fla.2014) (recognizing that defendant’s absence from resentencing proceeding was harmless as defendant was serving [1253]*1253longer sentences on counts not subject to resentencing and thus suffered no practical consequence as result of being resen-tenced in his absence).

AFFIRMED; • REMANDED for trial court to correct sentencing order omissions.

PALMER, EVANDER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 So. 3d 1252, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 8567, 2015 WL 3511221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gomes-v-state-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack