Hicks v. State

564 So. 2d 288, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 5452, 1990 WL 105495
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hicks v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 591 So. 2d 662
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 27, 1990·No. No. 86-02621·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, David Hicks, was convicted of robbery and sentenced to ten years imprisonment. The sentencing order includes a designation that the three year minimum mandatory sentence is applicable. The appellant claims that the minimum mandatory sentence was not applicable under the facts of this case. The state concedes that the minimum mandatory was not applicable and points out that the designation on the sentence appears to be a scrivener’s error. The judgment also includes a provision for costs which was imposed without notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Therefore, we order the cost provision and the minimum mandatory provision stricken. Appellant does not have to be present when his. sentence is so modified. Otherwise, affirmed.

FRANK, A.C.J., and HALL and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.

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

Hicks v. State, 564 So. 2d 288, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 5452, 1990 WL 105495 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

564 So. 2d 288 (Hicks v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.