Grunfeld v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Grunfeld v. State

874 So. 2d 692, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 7364, 2004 WL 1161830

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 26, 2004·No. No. 4D03-2473·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the revocation of appellant’s probation but remand for the court to enter a written order conforming the sentence to the oral pronouncement. While the court had orally imposed concurrent sentences on both counts at issue, the final judgment only imposed a sentence on count II, specifying that it was to run concurrent with count I. The court did not issue a written judgment as to count I. The state concedes that the court should also issue a judgment on count I in conformance with its oral pronouncement.

Affirmed but remanded to enter judgment and sentence on count I.

WARNER, KLEIN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the revocation of appellant’s probation but remand for the court to enter a written order conforming the sentence to the oral pronouncement. While the court had orally imposed concurrent sentences on both counts at issue, the final judgment only imposed a sentence on count II, specifying that it was to run concurrent with count I. The court did not issue a written judgment as to count I. The state concedes that the court should also issue a judgment on count I in conformance with its oral pronouncement.

Affirmed but remanded to enter judgment and sentence on count I.

WARNER, KLEIN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Grunfeld v. State, 874 So. 2d 692, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 7364, 2004 WL 1161830 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

874 So. 2d 692 (Grunfeld v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.