Haynes v. State
647 So. 2d 904, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 11370, 1994 WL 655887
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 23, 1994·No. No. 93-2211·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
We affirm in all respects except one. The State concedes the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences for count I and count III. Therefore, sentences for count I and III should run concurrently.
Accordingly, we affirm the convictions and sentences, except for the State’s concession of sentencing error and remand to the trial court.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Haynes v. State, 647 So. 2d 904, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 11370, 1994 WL 655887 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).
647 So. 2d 904 (Haynes v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Tampa Television, Inc. v. Norman
647 So. 2d 904 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)