Lubin v. State

758 So. 2d 747, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 6208, 2000 WL 668553
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 24, 2000·No. No. 3D99-49·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from judgments of conviction and sentences for attempted second degree murder of a law enforcement officer, grand theft auto, aggravated battery of a person over sixty-five years of age, and attempted robbery. We affirm.

Although the State confessed error on the sentencing issue, its confession was incorrect. “Although the sentences imposed on the defendant in the present case exceeded the statutory maximum, they were not illegal because they fell within the recommended sentencing guidelines.” Escutary v. State, 753 So.2d 650 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). See also, Mays v. State, 717 So.2d 515 (Fla.1998).

[748]*748We note that this is not the first time the State has incorrectly confessed error on this point; we trust it will be the last.

AFFIRMED.

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

Lubin v. State, 758 So. 2d 747, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 6208, 2000 WL 668553 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

758 So. 2d 747 (Lubin v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Padilla v. State
905 So. 2d 217 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)