Mullins v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mullins v. State

602 So. 2d 695, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 8978, 1992 WL 187248

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Mullins v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 8192 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 7, 1992·No. No. 91-01581·Published

Opinion

PATTERSON, Judge.

The appellant raises two points oh appeal, and we affirm as to the first point. As to the second, we reverse and remand for resentencing in accordance with section 39.059(7)(c) and (d), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1990), pursuant to Croskey v. State, 601 So.2d 1326 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (en banc). Also, on remand, the trial court may impose conditions of probation which reasonably relate to the crimes committed or to the appellant’s rehabilitation. Rodriguez v. State, 378 So.2d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

LEHAN, C.J., and RYDER, J., concur.

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

PATTERSON, Judge.

The appellant raises two points oh appeal, and we affirm as to the first point. As to the second, we reverse and remand for resentencing in accordance with section 39.059(7)(c) and (d), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1990), pursuant to Croskey v. State, 601 So.2d 1326 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (en banc). Also, on remand, the trial court may impose conditions of probation which reasonably relate to the crimes committed or to the appellant’s rehabilitation. Rodriguez v. State, 378 So.2d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

LEHAN, C.J., and RYDER, J., concur.

Mullins v. State, 602 So. 2d 695, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 8978, 1992 WL 187248 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

602 So. 2d 695 (Mullins v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related