Lafleur v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lafleur v. State

773 So. 2d 562, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 3915, 1997 WL 180242

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Lafleur v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 661 So. 2d 346 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 16, 1997·No. No. 96-669·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the resentencing required by LaFleur v. State, 661 So.2d 346 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). While the appellant’s only substantive point, that the successor sentencing judge should have been disqualified, has no merit, we agree with both parties that the sentencing documents should be clarified so as to reflect unequivocally that the minimum mandatory term imposed for counts I, II, and III are concurrent not only with each other, but, with those imposed for counts IV and V. LaFleur, 661 So.2d at 349-50. The cause is remanded solely to accomplish this purpose.¹

Affirmed, remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the resentencing required by LaFleur v. State, 661 So.2d 346 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). While the appellant’s only substantive point, that the successor sentencing judge should have been disqualified, has no merit, we agree with both parties that the sentencing documents should be clarified so as to reflect unequivocally that the minimum mandatory term imposed for counts I, II, and III are concurrent not only with each other, but, with those imposed for counts IV and V. LaFleur, 661 So.2d at 349-50. The cause is remanded solely to accomplish this purpose.¹

Affirmed, remanded.

Lafleur v. State, 773 So. 2d 562, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 3915, 1997 WL 180242 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

773 So. 2d 562 (Lafleur v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related