Hankins v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hankins v. State

663 So. 2d 684, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12460, 1995 WL 704727

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 1, 1995

DocketNo. 94-2693

StatusPublished

This text of 663 So. 2d 684 (Hankins 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

Hankins v. State, 663 So. 2d 684, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12460, 1995 WL 704727 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Alvin Hankins appeals the sentences imposed following the entry of his guilty pleas. We agree that there is a discrepancy between the verbal pronouncement of the sentence in Case No. 94-32878 and the written order and we remand to the trial court to resolve the conflict. See Wilkins v. State, 543 So.2d 800 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 554 So.2d 1170 (Fla.1989). The State concedes that the imposition of a $30 fee to “First Step” as a condition of probation in Case No. 88-1850 is not authorized and must be stricken.

We find no merit to the other issues raised by Hankins. Accordingly, as corrected, we reverse and remand only as to Case No. 94-32878.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED as to Case No. 94-32878.

PETERSON, C.J., and COBB and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Alvin Hankins appeals the sentences imposed following the entry of his guilty pleas. We agree that there is a discrepancy between the verbal pronouncement of the sentence in Case No. 94-32878 and the written order and we remand to the trial court to resolve the conflict. See Wilkins v. State, 543 So.2d 800 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 554 So.2d 1170 (Fla.1989). The State concedes that the imposition of a $30 fee to “First Step” as a condition of probation in Case No. 88-1850 is not authorized and must be stricken.

We find no merit to the other issues raised by Hankins. Accordingly, as corrected, we reverse and remand only as to Case No. 94-32878.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED as to Case No. 94-32878.

PETERSON, C.J., and COBB and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

663 So. 2d 684, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12460, 1995 WL 704727, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hankins-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack