Gordon v. State
This text of 112 So. 3d 126 (Gordon 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
Appellant challenges the denial of his rule 3.800(a) motion to correct sentence. We affirm in all respects, except Appellant’s claim that the sentences on counts one and four should be concurrent, rather than consecutive. As the State acknowledges, these two counts arose from the same criminal episode; consequently, the minimum mandatory sentences on these counts should run concurrently. Palmer v. State, 438 So.2d 1 (Fla.1983). On remand, the trial court shall correct the judgment to reflect that the sentences on these counts shall be served concurrently. Appellant need not be present.
AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
112 So. 3d 126, 2013 WL 1844232, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 7158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gordon-v-state-fladistctapp-2013.