Napier v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Napier v. State

468 So. 2d 446, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1133, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13824

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 7, 1985

DocketNo. AW-344

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 468 So. 2d 446 (Napier 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

Napier v. State, 468 So. 2d 446, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1133, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13824 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

SHIVERS, Judge.

Appellant, defendant below, was charged by information with burglary of a dwelling and grand theft. After a jury trial of both appellant and a codefendant, appellant was found guilty of trespass as a lesser included offense of burglary, and grand theft as charged. The trial court then sentenced appellant to 30 months in state prison for the grand theft conviction, and a concurrent one-year term in county jail on the trespass conviction.

Appellant’s counsel has filed an Anders¹ brief with this court, stating that he is unable to make a good faith argument that error occurred in the trial court and, therefore, cannot present an argument in support of the allegations contained in the Statement of Judicial Acts to be Reviewed. We agree that no error occurred below with regard to appellant’s conviction. As to appellant’s one-year sentence for trespass, however, we must remand for correction by the lower court. Although trespassing under section 810.08(2)(b) is a first-degree misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment not to exceed one year, the judgment in this case indicates appellant was found guilty of trespassing under section 810.08(2)(a). That subsection is a second-degree misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment not to exceed 60 days. Section 775.082(4)(b). Therefore, appellant’s concurrent one-year sentence for trespassing is remanded for correction by the trial court and the judgment is AFFIRMED.

SMITH and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.

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

SHIVERS, Judge.

Appellant, defendant below, was charged by information with burglary of a dwelling and grand theft. After a jury trial of both appellant and a codefendant, appellant was found guilty of trespass as a lesser included offense of burglary, and grand theft as charged. The trial court then sentenced appellant to 30 months in state prison for the grand theft conviction, and a concurrent one-year term in county jail on the trespass conviction.

Appellant’s counsel has filed an Anders¹ brief with this court, stating that he is unable to make a good faith argument that error occurred in the trial court and, therefore, cannot present an argument in support of the allegations contained in the Statement of Judicial Acts to be Reviewed. We agree that no error occurred below with regard to appellant’s conviction. As to appellant’s one-year sentence for trespass, however, we must remand for correction by the lower court. Although trespassing under section 810.08(2)(b) is a first-degree misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment not to exceed one year, the judgment in this case indicates appellant was found guilty of trespassing under section 810.08(2)(a). That subsection is a second-degree misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment not to exceed 60 days. Section 775.082(4)(b). Therefore, appellant’s concurrent one-year sentence for trespassing is remanded for correction by the trial court and the judgment is AFFIRMED.

SMITH and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

468 So. 2d 446, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1133, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13824, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/napier-v-state-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack