Matthews v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Matthews v. State

578 So. 2d 51, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 3588, 1991 WL 58853

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 19, 1991

DocketNo. 89-02830

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 578 So. 2d 51 (Matthews 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

Matthews v. State, 578 So. 2d 51, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 3588, 1991 WL 58853 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse appellant’s sentences for the third-degree felonies in case numbers 89-9328, 89-9450, and 89-9451. The written sentences do not comport with the trial court’s oral pronouncement that appellant would be sentenced to concurrent suspended terms of five years’ imprisonment, to be followed by five years’ probation. Moreover, the written sentences exceed the ten-year statutory maximum for a third-degree felony, enhanced pursuant to the habitual offender statute. See § 775.084(4)(a)3, Fla. Stat. (1989). On remand, the trial court shall correct the written sentences to comport with its oral pronouncement.

Appellant’s remaining point was not preserved for review by objection in the trial court.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for correction of written sentences.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and THREADGILL and PARKER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse appellant’s sentences for the third-degree felonies in case numbers 89-9328, 89-9450, and 89-9451. The written sentences do not comport with the trial court’s oral pronouncement that appellant would be sentenced to concurrent suspended terms of five years’ imprisonment, to be followed by five years’ probation. Moreover, the written sentences exceed the ten-year statutory maximum for a third-degree felony, enhanced pursuant to the habitual offender statute. See § 775.084(4)(a)3, Fla. Stat. (1989). On remand, the trial court shall correct the written sentences to comport with its oral pronouncement.

Appellant’s remaining point was not preserved for review by objection in the trial court.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for correction of written sentences.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and THREADGILL and PARKER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

578 So. 2d 51, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 3588, 1991 WL 58853, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthews-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack