Jefferies v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Jefferies v. State

794 So. 2d 642, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 7338

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 25, 2001

DocketNos. 2D99-4953 to 2D99-4958

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 794 So. 2d 642 (Jefferies 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

Jefferies v. State, 794 So. 2d 642, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 7338 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated cases, Kenneth Jefferies was convicted and sentenced for various crimes, the details of which are not relevant here. He appealed and counsel filed an appellate brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). We find no merit to Mr. Jefferies’ argument regarding the trial court’s acceptance of his pleas. However, he properly notes that the trial court’s oral pronouncement that the sentence in each of the six cases be served concurrently with all others was not strictly followed in the written sentences. Each of five of the written sentences presently note that it is concurrent with only one other; the sixth has no concurrent or consecutive notation at all. The State concedes this error. Therefore, we affirm the judgments and sentences but remand for correction of the written sentences to strictly conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement. Mr. Jefferies need not be present for this correction.

Affirmed but remanded for correction of written sentences.

PARKER, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT and CASANUEVA, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated cases, Kenneth Jefferies was convicted and sentenced for various crimes, the details of which are not relevant here. He appealed and counsel filed an appellate brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). We find no merit to Mr. Jefferies’ argument regarding the trial court’s acceptance of his pleas. However, he properly notes that the trial court’s oral pronouncement that the sentence in each of the six cases be served concurrently with all others was not strictly followed in the written sentences. Each of five of the written sentences presently note that it is concurrent with only one other; the sixth has no concurrent or consecutive notation at all. The State concedes this error. Therefore, we affirm the judgments and sentences but remand for correction of the written sentences to strictly conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement. Mr. Jefferies need not be present for this correction.

Affirmed but remanded for correction of written sentences.

PARKER, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT and CASANUEVA, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

794 So. 2d 642, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 7338, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jefferies-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack