Hines v. State
591 So. 2d 270, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 10276, 1991 WL 200144
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hines v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 587 So. 2d 620 →
Opinion
AFFIRMED. Although we agree with appellant that he was entitled to raise the alleged sentencing error by way of motion under Rule 3.800, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, we find the reasons given by the sentencing court in retaining jurisdiction over appellant’s sentence to be sufficient. Cf. Moore v. State, 392 So.2d 277 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Hines v. State, 591 So. 2d 270, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 10276, 1991 WL 200144 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).
591 So. 2d 270 (Hines v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Moore v. State
392 So. 2d 277 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)