Mitchell v. State

654 So. 2d 265, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 4505, 1995 WL 245994
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 28, 1995·No. No. 94-00121·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm Gregory Mitchell’s conviction for robbery, but we remand the ease because the written sentences do not comport with the trial court’s oral pronouncement. The probationary terms in case numbers 93-376F, 93-378F, and 93-379F must run concurrently to reflect the trial court’s pronouncement that Mitchell serve a total of ten years’ probation. We also note that the trial court must structure the sentences so that Mitchell is not ordered to serve a prison sentence and a probationary term simultaneously. See Cox v. State, 468 So.2d 437, 438 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).

PATTERSON, A.C.J., and BLUE and FULMER, JJ., concur.

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

Mitchell v. State, 654 So. 2d 265, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 4505, 1995 WL 245994 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

654 So. 2d 265 (Mitchell v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Warren L. Oliver v. State
201 So. 3d 210 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)