Kunsman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kunsman v. State

804 So. 2d 410, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 14168, 2001 WL 1189700

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 3, 2001

DocketNo. 4D00-3268

StatusPublished

This text of 804 So. 2d 410 (Kunsman 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

Kunsman v. State, 804 So. 2d 410, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 14168, 2001 WL 1189700 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s convictions and sentences for violation of community control in the two underlying circuit court cases. We note that the scoresheet in underlying case number 98-3603 improperly lists the theft offense from the other underlying case, number 99-1874, as an additional offense, when the latter case has its own separate scoresheet. However, this error cannot be resolved in this appeal, due to the lack of a contemporaneous objection and the lack of a motion to correct sentence under rule 3.800(b). Fla. R.Crim. P. See Drayton v. State, 791 So.2d 522 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). This affirmance therefore is without prejudice to appellant filing, in circuit court case number 98-3603, a motion to correct sentence under rule 3.800(a) challenging the scoresheet based its inclusion of the theft offense as an additional offense.

GUNTHER, STONE and KLEIN, JJ„ concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s convictions and sentences for violation of community control in the two underlying circuit court cases. We note that the scoresheet in underlying case number 98-3603 improperly lists the theft offense from the other underlying case, number 99-1874, as an additional offense, when the latter case has its own separate scoresheet. However, this error cannot be resolved in this appeal, due to the lack of a contemporaneous objection and the lack of a motion to correct sentence under rule 3.800(b). Fla. R.Crim. P. See Drayton v. State, 791 So.2d 522 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). This affirmance therefore is without prejudice to appellant filing, in circuit court case number 98-3603, a motion to correct sentence under rule 3.800(a) challenging the scoresheet based its inclusion of the theft offense as an additional offense.

GUNTHER, STONE and KLEIN, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

804 So. 2d 410, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 14168, 2001 WL 1189700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kunsman-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack