Hodge v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hodge v. State

655 So. 2d 250, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 6279, 1995 WL 340221

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hodge v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 603 So. 2d 1329 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 9, 1995·No. No. 94-1897·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The state properly concedes that the guidelines scoresheet was erroneously calculated due to an error in the severity ranking of grand theft, which requires remand for correction and a new sentencing using the correctly calculated scoresheet. We also agree that conditions “H” and “L” are special conditions that would require oral pronouncement. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed but we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.

Judgment AFFIRMED; sentence VACATED; and REMANDED.

DAUKSCH, W. SHARP and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The state properly concedes that the guidelines scoresheet was erroneously calculated due to an error in the severity ranking of grand theft, which requires remand for correction and a new sentencing using the correctly calculated scoresheet. We also agree that conditions “H” and “L” are special conditions that would require oral pronouncement. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed but we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.

Judgment AFFIRMED; sentence VACATED; and REMANDED.

DAUKSCH, W. SHARP and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.

Hodge v. State, 655 So. 2d 250, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 6279, 1995 WL 340221 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

655 So. 2d 250 (Hodge v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.