Lingerfelt v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lingerfelt v. State

433 So. 2d 647, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 20245

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 24, 1983

DocketNo. 82-2851

StatusPublished

This text of 433 So. 2d 647 (Lingerfelt 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

Lingerfelt v. State, 433 So. 2d 647, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 20245 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s adjudication of guilt is affirmed on the authority of Shanklin v. State, 369 So.2d 620 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 378 So.2d 348 (Fla.1979). The special conditions of his probation requiring him to pay $64 costs of prosecution and $10 to the Crimes Compensation Fund are also affirmed. State v. Byrd, 378 So.2d 1231 (Fla.1979). However, appellant’s offense is improperly identified on the judgment and the order of probation as “Sale of a Controlled Substance,” when the offense he actually committed was sale of an uncontrolled substance that he represented to be a specific controlled substance (methamphetamine), in violation of Section 817.563, Florida Statutes (1981). We therefore remand for correction of this error in the judgment and order of probation, but we otherwise affirm.

BOARDMAN, A.C.J., and SCHEB and DANAHY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s adjudication of guilt is affirmed on the authority of Shanklin v. State, 369 So.2d 620 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 378 So.2d 348 (Fla.1979). The special conditions of his probation requiring him to pay $64 costs of prosecution and $10 to the Crimes Compensation Fund are also affirmed. State v. Byrd, 378 So.2d 1231 (Fla.1979). However, appellant’s offense is improperly identified on the judgment and the order of probation as “Sale of a Controlled Substance,” when the offense he actually committed was sale of an uncontrolled substance that he represented to be a specific controlled substance (methamphetamine), in violation of Section 817.563, Florida Statutes (1981). We therefore remand for correction of this error in the judgment and order of probation, but we otherwise affirm.

BOARDMAN, A.C.J., and SCHEB and DANAHY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

433 So. 2d 647, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 20245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lingerfelt-v-state-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack