Laster v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Laster v. State

731 So. 2d 783, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 4713, 1999 WL 212098

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 14, 1999

DocketNo. 98-0517

StatusPublished

This text of 731 So. 2d 783 (Laster 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

Laster v. State, 731 So. 2d 783, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 4713, 1999 WL 212098 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

We affirmed, without opinion, appellant’s sentence as a habitual violent felony offender. Appellant’s motion for rehearing, though without merit, reflects his perception that the predicate offense used for enhancement was on appeal and, thus, was not final, citing Peterson v. State, 651 [784]*784So.2d 781 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) and like cases. Contrary to his assertion, the prior conviction was not appealed. On appeal at the time of his current sentencing was the order revoking probation on which he had been placed following the prior conviction. Appeal of the order revoking probation did not affect the finality of the conviction, it affected only the finality of the order of revocation. The motion for rehearing is denied.

GUNTHER, WARNER, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM, C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.

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

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

We affirmed, without opinion, appellant’s sentence as a habitual violent felony offender. Appellant’s motion for rehearing, though without merit, reflects his perception that the predicate offense used for enhancement was on appeal and, thus, was not final, citing Peterson v. State, 651 [784]*784So.2d 781 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) and like cases. Contrary to his assertion, the prior conviction was not appealed. On appeal at the time of his current sentencing was the order revoking probation on which he had been placed following the prior conviction. Appeal of the order revoking probation did not affect the finality of the conviction, it affected only the finality of the order of revocation. The motion for rehearing is denied.

GUNTHER, WARNER, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM, C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

731 So. 2d 783, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 4713, 1999 WL 212098, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laster-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack