M.H.-R. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

M.H.-R. v. State

61 So. 3d 483, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 7243, 2011 WL 1899536

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 20, 2011

DocketNo. 5D10-2108

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 61 So. 3d 483 (M.H.-R. 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

M.H.-R. v. State, 61 So. 3d 483, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 7243, 2011 WL 1899536 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s determination that M.H.-R. was guilty of resisting a law enforcement officer without violence. See Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, 542 U.S. 177, 124 S.Ct. 2451, 159 L.Ed.2d 292 (2004) (individual may be required to provide his or her name to law enforcement officer where officer has initiated a valid Terry¹ stop). However, we remand for a new disposition hearing (assuming the issue has not become moot) because of the inconsistencies between the trial court’s oral pronouncement and its written order as to the length of M.H.-R.’s curfew and probationary periods.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED

GRIFFIN, PALMER and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s determination that M.H.-R. was guilty of resisting a law enforcement officer without violence. See Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, 542 U.S. 177, 124 S.Ct. 2451, 159 L.Ed.2d 292 (2004) (individual may be required to provide his or her name to law enforcement officer where officer has initiated a valid Terry¹ stop). However, we remand for a new disposition hearing (assuming the issue has not become moot) because of the inconsistencies between the trial court’s oral pronouncement and its written order as to the length of M.H.-R.’s curfew and probationary periods.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED

GRIFFIN, PALMER and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 So. 3d 483, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 7243, 2011 WL 1899536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mh-r-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack