McDaniel v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McDaniel v. State

706 So. 2d 923, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1501, 1998 WL 88140

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 19, 1998

DocketNo. 96-3392

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 706 So. 2d 923 (McDaniel 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

McDaniel v. State, 706 So. 2d 923, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1501, 1998 WL 88140 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND/OR CLARIFICATION

SCHEMER, Associate Judge.

The state has filed a motion for rehearing and/or clarification alleging that we incorrectly calculated the appellant’s sentence and further alleging that the trial court’s orally pronounced sentence is not illegal. Having found a typographical error in our opinion which does lead to an incorrect calculation, we write to clarify our opinion.

The state in its motion has misconstrued our opinion. We agree that the trial court’s orally pronounced sentence is not illegal but that is not the issue our opinion addresses. Although we noted other errors in a footnote, our opinion addresses the only raised issue, the written order of probation which reflects a sentence of 15 months jail followed by probation through August 21, 2001. As stated in our opinion, this sentence exceeds the statutory maximum by four months and thus, is an illegal sentence.

However, in stating that appellant’s sentence is illegal, we wrote “the sentence of 15 months jail plus approximately 45 months of probation [August 7, 1996 — April 21, 2001] plus 4 months credit for community control exceeds the maximum allowable sentence by 4 months.” The dates in the brackets should state August 7, 1996 — August 21, 2001 which would then correctly reflect the combined jail and probation sentence contained in the written order of probation. Hence, we correct this typographical error but uphold the finding in our opinion.

MINER and ALLEN, JJ., concur.

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

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND/OR CLARIFICATION

SCHEMER, Associate Judge.

The state has filed a motion for rehearing and/or clarification alleging that we incorrectly calculated the appellant’s sentence and further alleging that the trial court’s orally pronounced sentence is not illegal. Having found a typographical error in our opinion which does lead to an incorrect calculation, we write to clarify our opinion.

The state in its motion has misconstrued our opinion. We agree that the trial court’s orally pronounced sentence is not illegal but that is not the issue our opinion addresses. Although we noted other errors in a footnote, our opinion addresses the only raised issue, the written order of probation which reflects a sentence of 15 months jail followed by probation through August 21, 2001. As stated in our opinion, this sentence exceeds the statutory maximum by four months and thus, is an illegal sentence.

However, in stating that appellant’s sentence is illegal, we wrote “the sentence of 15 months jail plus approximately 45 months of probation [August 7, 1996 — April 21, 2001] plus 4 months credit for community control exceeds the maximum allowable sentence by 4 months.” The dates in the brackets should state August 7, 1996 — August 21, 2001 which would then correctly reflect the combined jail and probation sentence contained in the written order of probation. Hence, we correct this typographical error but uphold the finding in our opinion.

MINER and ALLEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

706 So. 2d 923, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1501, 1998 WL 88140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdaniel-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack