Mirelez v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mirelez v. State

804 So. 2d 622, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 561, 2002 WL 90821

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 25, 2002·No. No. 5D01-2263·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the conviction but remand to the trial court to correct an inconsistency between the orally pronounced sentence and the written sentence as to Count XIV. The trial court orally pronounced a five year sentence while the written sentence imposed a prison term of 15 years for this count. The error is clear and its correction does not change the aggregate sentence appellant received.

Therefore, the appellant’s conviction is affirmed and the matter is remanded for correction of the sentence as to Count XIV.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED FOR CORRECTION OF SENTENCE.

PETERSON, GRIFFIN and PLEUS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the conviction but remand to the trial court to correct an inconsistency between the orally pronounced sentence and the written sentence as to Count XIV. The trial court orally pronounced a five year sentence while the written sentence imposed a prison term of 15 years for this count. The error is clear and its correction does not change the aggregate sentence appellant received.

Therefore, the appellant’s conviction is affirmed and the matter is remanded for correction of the sentence as to Count XIV.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED FOR CORRECTION OF SENTENCE.

PETERSON, GRIFFIN and PLEUS, JJ., concur.

Mirelez v. State, 804 So. 2d 622, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 561, 2002 WL 90821 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

804 So. 2d 622 (Mirelez v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related