Lucas v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lucas v. State

684 So. 2d 274, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 12759, 1996 WL 709273

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 5, 1996

DocketNo. 96-1355

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 684 So. 2d 274 (Lucas 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

Lucas v. State, 684 So. 2d 274, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 12759, 1996 WL 709273 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We afSrm appellant’s judgments and sentences. Appellant, who pled nolo contendere in three eases, argues that correction of the judgments and sentences as written is necessary. We agree and remand for the trial court to conform the written judgment and sentence in case number 94-1028 to the oral pronouncement by correcting appellant’s sentence to reflect the five-year sentence imposed, rather than the five and a half year sentence written, and to indicate that the sentence in that case is to run concurrent with the sentences in the other cases. In addition, in ease number 94-1225, the court failed to grant credit for any time served although the record reflects that appellant is entitled to such credit. We therefore remand for the court to correct this apparent oversight.

MINER, ALLEN and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We afSrm appellant’s judgments and sentences. Appellant, who pled nolo contendere in three eases, argues that correction of the judgments and sentences as written is necessary. We agree and remand for the trial court to conform the written judgment and sentence in case number 94-1028 to the oral pronouncement by correcting appellant’s sentence to reflect the five-year sentence imposed, rather than the five and a half year sentence written, and to indicate that the sentence in that case is to run concurrent with the sentences in the other cases. In addition, in ease number 94-1225, the court failed to grant credit for any time served although the record reflects that appellant is entitled to such credit. We therefore remand for the court to correct this apparent oversight.

MINER, ALLEN and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

684 So. 2d 274, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 12759, 1996 WL 709273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lucas-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack