Micheal Adams v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Micheal Adams v. State of Florida

199 So. 3d 530, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 13482, 2016 WL 4732840

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 8, 2016

Docket1D16-2390

StatusPublished

This text of 199 So. 3d 530 (Micheal Adams v. State of Florida) 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

Micheal Adams v. State of Florida, 199 So. 3d 530, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 13482, 2016 WL 4732840 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant filed a postconviction motion raising three claims. He acknowledges that the notice of appeal is untimely as to the first two claims. In the third claim he asserts that the Department of Corrections (“DOC”) is improperly consecutively running the sentence imposed in Duval County case number 16-2012-CF-3104 to the sentences imposed in 16-2011-CF-3527, even though he negotiated for concurrent imposition when he entered his plea in the 2012 case. He first approached the DOC to address this sentencing structure, and the DOC told him he needed to obtain a corrected judgment from the lower court in order to have the sentences run concurrently. The trial court denied the claim without any analysis or attachments conclusively refuting it.

As there is an October 24, 2012, revised judgment in the record of the 2012 case, stating that the revision was to “Re-record to reflect concurrent sentencet,]” and which does indeed indicate the 2012 sentence was to be concurrently imposed to the 2011 sentences, we therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to either attach records conclusively refuting the appellant’s claim or to provide this revised judgment to the DOC.

REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED IN PART, with directions.

WOLF, LEWIS, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant filed a postconviction motion raising three claims. He acknowledges that the notice of appeal is untimely as to the first two claims. In the third claim he asserts that the Department of Corrections (“DOC”) is improperly consecutively running the sentence imposed in Duval County case number 16-2012-CF-3104 to the sentences imposed in 16-2011-CF-3527, even though he negotiated for concurrent imposition when he entered his plea in the 2012 case. He first approached the DOC to address this sentencing structure, and the DOC told him he needed to obtain a corrected judgment from the lower court in order to have the sentences run concurrently. The trial court denied the claim without any analysis or attachments conclusively refuting it.

As there is an October 24, 2012, revised judgment in the record of the 2012 case, stating that the revision was to “Re-record to reflect concurrent sentencet,]” and which does indeed indicate the 2012 sentence was to be concurrently imposed to the 2011 sentences, we therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to either attach records conclusively refuting the appellant’s claim or to provide this revised judgment to the DOC.

REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED IN PART, with directions.

WOLF, LEWIS, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 So. 3d 530, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 13482, 2016 WL 4732840, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/micheal-adams-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2016.