Hios v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hios v. State

586 So. 2d 510, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 13959, 1991 WL 196306

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 4, 1991·No. No. 90-03513·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of assault and of battery. He was sentenced to one year of probation for the battery count and six months probation for the assault, to run concurrently. However, the Adjudication and Probation Order and the Order of Probation indicate that the probation periods are to run consecutively.

We remand for correction of these orders to conform to the oral pronouncement of sentence, reflecting that the probation terms are concurrent. Otherwise, affirmed.

SCHOONOVER, C.J., and CAMPBELL and LEHAN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of assault and of battery. He was sentenced to one year of probation for the battery count and six months probation for the assault, to run concurrently. However, the Adjudication and Probation Order and the Order of Probation indicate that the probation periods are to run consecutively.

We remand for correction of these orders to conform to the oral pronouncement of sentence, reflecting that the probation terms are concurrent. Otherwise, affirmed.

SCHOONOVER, C.J., and CAMPBELL and LEHAN, JJ., concur.

Hios v. State, 586 So. 2d 510, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 13959, 1991 WL 196306 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

586 So. 2d 510 (Hios v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related