Lock v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lock v. State

768 So. 2d 1118, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 9610, 2000 WL 1055762

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 2, 2000

DocketNo. 2D99-4591

StatusPublished

This text of 768 So. 2d 1118 (Lock 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

Lock v. State, 768 So. 2d 1118, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 9610, 2000 WL 1055762 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Eddie Mack Lock appeals two concurrent life sentences imposed upon him as a habitual violent felony offender. See § 775.084(l)(b), (4)(b)(l), Florida Statutes (1989). The trial court imposed these sentences upon remand from this court. See Lock v. State, 732 So.2d 1161 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). The State concedes that the written sentence includes a mandatory minimum term not orally imposed by the trial court. It was within the trial court’s discretion to impose or to refuse to impose such a mandatory minimum term. See State v. Hudson, 698 So.2d 831 (Fla.1997). Because the trial judge did not impose this term, it appears that it was merely clerical error. We thus strike from the sentence the mandatory minimum term. We find no merit in Mr. Lock’s remaining arguments, and otherwise affirm.

Affirmed; mandatory minimum stricken.

PATTERSON, C.J., and ALTENBERND and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Eddie Mack Lock appeals two concurrent life sentences imposed upon him as a habitual violent felony offender. See § 775.084(l)(b), (4)(b)(l), Florida Statutes (1989). The trial court imposed these sentences upon remand from this court. See Lock v. State, 732 So.2d 1161 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). The State concedes that the written sentence includes a mandatory minimum term not orally imposed by the trial court. It was within the trial court’s discretion to impose or to refuse to impose such a mandatory minimum term. See State v. Hudson, 698 So.2d 831 (Fla.1997). Because the trial judge did not impose this term, it appears that it was merely clerical error. We thus strike from the sentence the mandatory minimum term. We find no merit in Mr. Lock’s remaining arguments, and otherwise affirm.

Affirmed; mandatory minimum stricken.

PATTERSON, C.J., and ALTENBERND and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

768 So. 2d 1118, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 9610, 2000 WL 1055762, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lock-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack