Griffith v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Griffith v. State

909 So. 2d 961, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 13743, 2005 WL 2087888

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 31, 2005

DocketNo. 3D05-1297

StatusPublished

This text of 909 So. 2d 961 (Griffith 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

Griffith v. State, 909 So. 2d 961, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 13743, 2005 WL 2087888 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Michael Griffith appeals an order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence.

With regard to point II of the motion filed by defendant-appellant Griffith, the State concedes that there is an error in the sentencing order. The sentencing order states that the defendant was sentenced as a prison releasee reoffender (PRR) on both counts I and II, whereas the oral pronouncement reflects that the defendant was sentenced as a PRR for count I only. We therefore reverse the order denying the motion to correct illegal sentence in part, and remand with directions to strike the PRR designation from count II. See Reyes v. State, 888 So.2d 95, 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Reddick v. State, 802 So.2d 421, 422 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). The defendant need not be present. We affirm the remainder of the order denying relief.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

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

PER CURIAM.

Michael Griffith appeals an order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence.

With regard to point II of the motion filed by defendant-appellant Griffith, the State concedes that there is an error in the sentencing order. The sentencing order states that the defendant was sentenced as a prison releasee reoffender (PRR) on both counts I and II, whereas the oral pronouncement reflects that the defendant was sentenced as a PRR for count I only. We therefore reverse the order denying the motion to correct illegal sentence in part, and remand with directions to strike the PRR designation from count II. See Reyes v. State, 888 So.2d 95, 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Reddick v. State, 802 So.2d 421, 422 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). The defendant need not be present. We affirm the remainder of the order denying relief.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

909 So. 2d 961, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 13743, 2005 WL 2087888, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griffith-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack