Manual v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Manual v. State

547 So. 2d 726, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1956, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4659, 1989 WL 95294

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 18, 1989

DocketNo. 87-02862

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 547 So. 2d 726 (Manual 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

Manual v. State, 547 So. 2d 726, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1956, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4659, 1989 WL 95294 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s convictions and sentences for sexual battery, robbery and grand theft, as well as his conviction for armed burglary. In so doing we reject appellant’s argument that the trial court, denying appellant’s motion for new trial, applied an incorrect standard of review. See, e.g., Uprevert v. State, 507 So.2d 162 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

Appellant also argues that the written judgment and sentence forms entered in connection with the armed burglary conviction do not conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence, and thus should be corrected. Jones v. State, 533 So.2d 796 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). We agree. The state concedes that a discrepancy exists but suggests the error most likely originates in the court reporter’s transcript of the sentencing hearing. Accordingly, our decision is without prejudice to the state to attempt to establish this fact at resentenc-ing.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

CAMPBELL, C.J., and SCHEB and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s convictions and sentences for sexual battery, robbery and grand theft, as well as his conviction for armed burglary. In so doing we reject appellant’s argument that the trial court, denying appellant’s motion for new trial, applied an incorrect standard of review. See, e.g., Uprevert v. State, 507 So.2d 162 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

Appellant also argues that the written judgment and sentence forms entered in connection with the armed burglary conviction do not conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence, and thus should be corrected. Jones v. State, 533 So.2d 796 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). We agree. The state concedes that a discrepancy exists but suggests the error most likely originates in the court reporter’s transcript of the sentencing hearing. Accordingly, our decision is without prejudice to the state to attempt to establish this fact at resentenc-ing.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

CAMPBELL, C.J., and SCHEB and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

547 So. 2d 726, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1956, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4659, 1989 WL 95294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manual-v-state-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack