Helfrich v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Helfrich v. State

657 So. 2d 55, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 7291, 1995 WL 387000

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 3, 1995

DocketNo. 94-2828

StatusPublished

This text of 657 So. 2d 55 (Helfrich 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

Helfrich v. State, 657 So. 2d 55, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 7291, 1995 WL 387000 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises from appellant’s conviction and sentence for felony DUI. The sentencing error alleged on appeal as Issue I does not produce an illegal or unauthorized departure sentence and was not the subject of a contemporaneous objection; therefore, we do not address that issue. State v. Whitfield, 487 So.2d 1045 (Fla.1986); see Merchant v. State, 509 So.2d 1101 (Fla.1987); Brunson v. State, 489 So.2d 1159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).

On Issue II, the parties concede that a simple mathematical error occurred in calculating appellant’s prior offenses point total. That error, although harmless in effect at this time, should be corrected. Subject to this correction (97 points to 89 points), we affirm the judgment and sentence below.

BOOTH, JOANOS and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises from appellant’s conviction and sentence for felony DUI. The sentencing error alleged on appeal as Issue I does not produce an illegal or unauthorized departure sentence and was not the subject of a contemporaneous objection; therefore, we do not address that issue. State v. Whitfield, 487 So.2d 1045 (Fla.1986); see Merchant v. State, 509 So.2d 1101 (Fla.1987); Brunson v. State, 489 So.2d 1159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).

On Issue II, the parties concede that a simple mathematical error occurred in calculating appellant’s prior offenses point total. That error, although harmless in effect at this time, should be corrected. Subject to this correction (97 points to 89 points), we affirm the judgment and sentence below.

BOOTH, JOANOS and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

657 So. 2d 55, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 7291, 1995 WL 387000, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/helfrich-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack