Hoffman v. State

550 So. 2d 148, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2441, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6298, 1989 WL 124997
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 13, 1989·No. No. 89-02155·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Edward Hoffman appeals the denial by the trial court of his motion and amended motion to correct an illegal sentence. We affirm.

Hoffman alleges that the sentencing guidelines were improperly applied to his offenses, and that the trial court erred in retaining jurisdiction over one-third of his sentence. Both arguments are without merit. A review of the record clearly reflects that the crimes for which Hoffman was sentenced were committed before July 1, 1984, the effective date of the sentencing guidelines, as recently determined by the supreme court in Smith v. State, 537 So.2d 982 (Fla.1989).

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

Hoffman v. State, 550 So. 2d 148, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2441, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6298, 1989 WL 124997 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

550 So. 2d 148 (Hoffman v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Smith v. State
537 So. 2d 982 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1989)
Wahl v. State
543 So. 2d 299 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
In re Rules of Criminal Procedure
439 So. 2d 848 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1983)