Holloman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Holloman v. State

725 So. 2d 1179, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 15901, 1998 WL 879696

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 18, 1998

DocketNos. 96-04007, 97-02222

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 725 So. 2d 1179 (Holloman v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Holloman v. State, 725 So. 2d 1179, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 15901, 1998 WL 879696 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated cases, Holloman challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence and the sentence imposed. We affirm the trial court’s ruling on the motion to suppress. Given the specificity of the informant’s tip and the independently corroborated details of the tip, the totality of the circumstances justified the arrest of Holloman after he left the hotel. See State v. Maya, 529 So.2d 1282, 1285 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (police observation combined with informant’s tip justified probable cause conclusion).

With respect to the sentence imposed, we remand for correction because the written judgment erroneously indicates that the sentence imposed on count II is a habitual offender sentence. However, as the record discloses and the State acknowledges, the trial court imposed a guidelines sentence of 151 months on count II. Holloman need not be present when the correction is made.

Affirmed in part and remanded with directions.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and FULMER and QUINCE, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated cases, Holloman challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence and the sentence imposed. We affirm the trial court’s ruling on the motion to suppress. Given the specificity of the informant’s tip and the independently corroborated details of the tip, the totality of the circumstances justified the arrest of Holloman after he left the hotel. See State v. Maya, 529 So.2d 1282, 1285 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (police observation combined with informant’s tip justified probable cause conclusion).

With respect to the sentence imposed, we remand for correction because the written judgment erroneously indicates that the sentence imposed on count II is a habitual offender sentence. However, as the record discloses and the State acknowledges, the trial court imposed a guidelines sentence of 151 months on count II. Holloman need not be present when the correction is made.

Affirmed in part and remanded with directions.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and FULMER and QUINCE, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

725 So. 2d 1179, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 15901, 1998 WL 879696, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holloman-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack