Manuel v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Manuel v. State

748 So. 2d 369, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 171, 2000 WL 27545

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 12, 2000·No. No. 3D99-3020·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After review of the sentencing transcript excerpts, it is very clear that the trial court sentenced appellant as a habitual violent felony offender, and that the written sentencing orders accurately reflect the oral pronouncement. The case primarily relied on by appellant, Hill v. State, 652 So.2d 904 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), is a case in which the sentencing court failed entirely to impose a mandatory minimum sentence. See id. at 904. In appellant’s case, by contrast, the sentences, including the mandatory minimum sentences, were clearly stated by the trial court and are accurately reflected on the sentencing order.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

After review of the sentencing transcript excerpts, it is very clear that the trial court sentenced appellant as a habitual violent felony offender, and that the written sentencing orders accurately reflect the oral pronouncement. The case primarily relied on by appellant, Hill v. State, 652 So.2d 904 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), is a case in which the sentencing court failed entirely to impose a mandatory minimum sentence. See id. at 904. In appellant’s case, by contrast, the sentences, including the mandatory minimum sentences, were clearly stated by the trial court and are accurately reflected on the sentencing order.

Affirmed.

Manuel v. State, 748 So. 2d 369, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 171, 2000 WL 27545 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

748 So. 2d 369 (Manuel v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related