Guy v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Guy v. State

891 So. 2d 1193, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 883, 2005 WL 235970

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 2, 2005

DocketNo. 3D04-538

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 891 So. 2d 1193 (Guy 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

Guy v. State, 891 So. 2d 1193, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 883, 2005 WL 235970 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Stevens Guy entered a plea of nolo con-tendere to charges of possession of heroin, possession of cocaine, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Under the plea agreement, he reserved for appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. We conclude that the motion to suppress [1194]*1194was correctly denied. See State v. Gribeiro, 513 So.2d 1323 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

We remand for correction of the judgment, which erroneously indicates that the defendant-appellant Guy entered a plea of guilty. In reality, he entered a plea of nolo contendere. The defendant need not be present for the correction of the judgment.

Affirmed; remanded for correction of judgment.

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

PER CURIAM.

Stevens Guy entered a plea of nolo con-tendere to charges of possession of heroin, possession of cocaine, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Under the plea agreement, he reserved for appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. We conclude that the motion to suppress [1194]*1194was correctly denied. See State v. Gribeiro, 513 So.2d 1323 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

We remand for correction of the judgment, which erroneously indicates that the defendant-appellant Guy entered a plea of guilty. In reality, he entered a plea of nolo contendere. The defendant need not be present for the correction of the judgment.

Affirmed; remanded for correction of judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

891 So. 2d 1193, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 883, 2005 WL 235970, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guy-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack