Gorman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gorman v. State

636 So. 2d 203, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 4705, 1994 WL 182049

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 13, 1994

DocketNo. 92-2700

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 636 So. 2d 203 (Gorman 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

Gorman v. State, 636 So. 2d 203, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 4705, 1994 WL 182049 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

WOLF, Judge.

Appellant raises two points on appeal: 1) Whether the trial court erred in allowing three state witnesses to testify to hearsay statements made by the child victim, and 2) whether the trial court had jurisdiction to resentence the appellant and enter an amended sentencing order after appellant had filed an appeal. We find no merit as to issue I, and affirm without further discussion.

As to issue II, while it appears that the original sentence was illegal, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to amend the sentence after the notice of appeal was filed in this court. Kelly v. State, 369 So.2d 493 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). In the interest of judicial economy, we affirm the judgment, but remand for imposition of the sentence in accordance with the penalty for violation of section 776.082(1), Florida Statutes (1991).

BARFIELD and BENTON, JJ., concur.

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

WOLF, Judge.

Appellant raises two points on appeal: 1) Whether the trial court erred in allowing three state witnesses to testify to hearsay statements made by the child victim, and 2) whether the trial court had jurisdiction to resentence the appellant and enter an amended sentencing order after appellant had filed an appeal. We find no merit as to issue I, and affirm without further discussion.

As to issue II, while it appears that the original sentence was illegal, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to amend the sentence after the notice of appeal was filed in this court. Kelly v. State, 369 So.2d 493 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). In the interest of judicial economy, we affirm the judgment, but remand for imposition of the sentence in accordance with the penalty for violation of section 776.082(1), Florida Statutes (1991).

BARFIELD and BENTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

636 So. 2d 203, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 4705, 1994 WL 182049, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gorman-v-state-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack