Masters v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Masters v. State

904 So. 2d 640, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 9728, 2005 WL 1467334

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 23, 2005

DocketNo. 1D04-2042

StatusPublished

This text of 904 So. 2d 640 (Masters 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

Masters v. State, 904 So. 2d 640, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 9728, 2005 WL 1467334 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges the order of revocation of probation, the judgment, and the sentences entered and imposed after the trial court found that the appellant had committed various violations of probation. We affirm the order, judgment and sentences, except as to an error which appears on page 6 of the appellant’s written sentence.

In imposing sentence, the trial court orally announced that the appellant’s sentences in the present case would run concurrently with state prison sentences the appellant was already serving. As the ap-pellee concedes, the written sentence incorrectly indicates that the state prison sentences the appellant was already serving had been imposed in Manatee County. We therefore strike the reference to Manatee County from page 6 of the appellant’s written sentence, so that the pertinent remaining language appearing there will indicate that the appellant’s sentences in the present case will run concurrently with one another, and that the sentences in the present case will also run concurrently with the state prison sentences the appellant was already serving when the judgment and sentences were entered and imposed in the present case.

Accordingly, the order of revocation of probation, the judgment, and the sentences are affirmed, but the reference to Manatee County is stricken from the written sentence.

WOLF, C.J., ALLEN and BENTON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges the order of revocation of probation, the judgment, and the sentences entered and imposed after the trial court found that the appellant had committed various violations of probation. We affirm the order, judgment and sentences, except as to an error which appears on page 6 of the appellant’s written sentence.

In imposing sentence, the trial court orally announced that the appellant’s sentences in the present case would run concurrently with state prison sentences the appellant was already serving. As the ap-pellee concedes, the written sentence incorrectly indicates that the state prison sentences the appellant was already serving had been imposed in Manatee County. We therefore strike the reference to Manatee County from page 6 of the appellant’s written sentence, so that the pertinent remaining language appearing there will indicate that the appellant’s sentences in the present case will run concurrently with one another, and that the sentences in the present case will also run concurrently with the state prison sentences the appellant was already serving when the judgment and sentences were entered and imposed in the present case.

Accordingly, the order of revocation of probation, the judgment, and the sentences are affirmed, but the reference to Manatee County is stricken from the written sentence.

WOLF, C.J., ALLEN and BENTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

904 So. 2d 640, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 9728, 2005 WL 1467334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/masters-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.