Harrison v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Harrison v. State

455 So. 2d 1340, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2067, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15155

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 25, 1984

DocketNo. 83-1660

StatusPublished

This text of 455 So. 2d 1340 (Harrison 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

Harrison v. State, 455 So. 2d 1340, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2067, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15155 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The order which revoked appellant’s probation and imposed concurrent five year sentences for several counts of grand theft and uttering forged instruments is affirmed upon a holding that the record establishes that there were substantial violations of the conditions of appellant’s probation sufficient to support revocation. Miller v. State, 444 So.2d 523 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Edwards v. State, 439 So.2d 1028 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Chappell v. State, 429 So.2d 84 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).

We remand, however, to allow the trial court to correct the sentence to reflect that jail time was ordered and served on count III of case number 81-18148 and thus it was error to impose a sentence on that count. Appellant need not be present when the sentence is corrected. In addition, our computations indicate that appellant should be credited with 147 days time already served.

Affirmed with directions.

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

PER CURIAM.

The order which revoked appellant’s probation and imposed concurrent five year sentences for several counts of grand theft and uttering forged instruments is affirmed upon a holding that the record establishes that there were substantial violations of the conditions of appellant’s probation sufficient to support revocation. Miller v. State, 444 So.2d 523 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Edwards v. State, 439 So.2d 1028 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Chappell v. State, 429 So.2d 84 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).

We remand, however, to allow the trial court to correct the sentence to reflect that jail time was ordered and served on count III of case number 81-18148 and thus it was error to impose a sentence on that count. Appellant need not be present when the sentence is corrected. In addition, our computations indicate that appellant should be credited with 147 days time already served.

Affirmed with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

455 So. 2d 1340, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2067, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrison-v-state-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack