Lee v. State

777 So. 2d 418, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 15073, 1998 WL 842664
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 2, 1998·No. No. 97-2309·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm defendant’s convictions. See Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 110 S.Ct. 2793, 111 L.Ed.2d 148 (1990); United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 94 S.Ct. 988, 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974); State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986). Additionally, we reject the state’s contention that the defendant’s aggravated battery judgment of conviction is incorrect. See Dozier v. State, 677 So.2d 1352 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).

However, we remand the cause to the trial court to clarify defendant’s sentence because the court’s oral pronouncements are unclear as to whether it intended to sentence defendant as an habitual offender on count I only, or on all counts. See Hampton v. State, 711 So.2d 200 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).

Convictions affirmed; cause remanded to clarify sentence.

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

Lee v. State, 777 So. 2d 418, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 15073, 1998 WL 842664 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

777 So. 2d 418 (Lee v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Nelson v. State
805 So. 2d 1071 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)