Merriman v. State
671 So. 2d 879, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 3986, 1996 WL 180442
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 17, 1996·No. No. 95-734·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
We affirm defendant’s conviction. However, we have no alternative but to reverse the sentencing order and remand for reimposition of the original agreed twenty-four-year habitual offender sentence. There is no provision in the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure for a trial court’s subsequent enhancement of a legal sentence that it has imposed. Royal v. State, 389 So.2d 696, 697 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.800.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded with directions.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Merriman v. State, 671 So. 2d 879, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 3986, 1996 WL 180442 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).
671 So. 2d 879 (Merriman v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Hopping v. State
674 So. 2d 905 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)