Henriquez v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Henriquez v. State

724 So. 2d 616, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 16059, 1998 WL 889102

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 23, 1998

DocketNos. 98-953, 98-1499

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 724 So. 2d 616 (Henriquez 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

Henriquez v. State, 724 So. 2d 616, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 16059, 1998 WL 889102 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant sought relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800, arguing his sentences were illegal. He claimed the trial court had denied him relief, and filed the instant appeal. We found no order ruling on his 3.800 motion and remanded for the trial court’s entry of an appealable order. See Owens v. State, 579 So.2d 311 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)(concluding district court of appeal did not have jurisdiction over appeal absent entry of signed written judgment). The trial court thereafter ruled on defendant’s motion, modified the sentences at issue, and ordered them in part to run consecutively. The sentences are now within the statutory limit and do not exceed the sentencing time originally imposed. Accordingly, the trial judge acted within his discretion. See Mitchell v. State, 573 So.2d 446 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Finding no error in the trial judge’s rulings, we affirm the orders under review. Because it appears that in light of the sentences as now ordered, the defendant may soon be eligible for release, we bring the case to the attention of the Department of Corrections.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant sought relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800, arguing his sentences were illegal. He claimed the trial court had denied him relief, and filed the instant appeal. We found no order ruling on his 3.800 motion and remanded for the trial court’s entry of an appealable order. See Owens v. State, 579 So.2d 311 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)(concluding district court of appeal did not have jurisdiction over appeal absent entry of signed written judgment). The trial court thereafter ruled on defendant’s motion, modified the sentences at issue, and ordered them in part to run consecutively. The sentences are now within the statutory limit and do not exceed the sentencing time originally imposed. Accordingly, the trial judge acted within his discretion. See Mitchell v. State, 573 So.2d 446 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Finding no error in the trial judge’s rulings, we affirm the orders under review. Because it appears that in light of the sentences as now ordered, the defendant may soon be eligible for release, we bring the case to the attention of the Department of Corrections.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

724 So. 2d 616, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 16059, 1998 WL 889102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henriquez-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack