Gordon v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gordon v. State

112 So. 3d 126, 2013 WL 1844232, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 7158

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Gordon v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 18360 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 3, 2013·No. No. 5D12-4341·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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.

PALMER, TORPY and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

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.

PALMER, TORPY and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

Gordon v. State, 112 So. 3d 126, 2013 WL 1844232, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 7158 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

112 So. 3d 126 (Gordon v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related