Hampton v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hampton v. State

630 So. 2d 1248, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 617, 1994 WL 27304

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 4, 1994·No. No. 92-04015·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s convictions and sentences for sale of cocaine, including the finding that appellant is subject to an extended sentence as a habitual offender. See King v. State, 597 So.2d 309 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 602 So.2d 942 (Fla.1992). However, we remand for correction of the order revoking probation, which erroneously states that appellant violated condition (5) relating to the commission of a separate criminal offense. Appellant did not admit to this particular violation, nor was evidence of same received at the violation hearing.

SCHOONOVER, Acting C.J., and BLUE and FULMER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s convictions and sentences for sale of cocaine, including the finding that appellant is subject to an extended sentence as a habitual offender. See King v. State, 597 So.2d 309 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 602 So.2d 942 (Fla.1992). However, we remand for correction of the order revoking probation, which erroneously states that appellant violated condition (5) relating to the commission of a separate criminal offense. Appellant did not admit to this particular violation, nor was evidence of same received at the violation hearing.

SCHOONOVER, Acting C.J., and BLUE and FULMER, JJ., concur.

Hampton v. State, 630 So. 2d 1248, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 617, 1994 WL 27304 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

630 So. 2d 1248 (Hampton v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related