Nieves v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Nieves v. State

622 So. 2d 173, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 8420, 1993 WL 306715

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 13, 1993

DocketNo. 92-1460

StatusPublished

This text of 622 So. 2d 173 (Nieves 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

Nieves v. State, 622 So. 2d 173, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 8420, 1993 WL 306715 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm Nieves’ convictions for possession of a short-barreled shotgun,¹ and possession of cannabis.² He was sentenced to two years incarceration, followed by four years probation on both counts. We affirm the sentence for possession of a shotgun, but we reverse the sentence for possession of cannabis because it exceeds the statutory maximum for a first degree misdemean- or.

The state concedes error but urges the sentence was not intended to be imposed for the misdemeanor count. In any event, the state argues it is moot because Nieves has served the incarceration part of the sentence. However, the record shows he was illegally sentenced on the misdemean- or count.

Accordingly, we reverse the sentence imposed for the misdemeanor and on remand, we direct the trial court to discharge appellant from the probationary portion of the misdemeanor sentence.

AFFIRM in part; VACATE SENTENCE; REMAND.

HARRIS, C.J., and DAUKSCH and W. SHARP, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm Nieves’ convictions for possession of a short-barreled shotgun,¹ and possession of cannabis.² He was sentenced to two years incarceration, followed by four years probation on both counts. We affirm the sentence for possession of a shotgun, but we reverse the sentence for possession of cannabis because it exceeds the statutory maximum for a first degree misdemean- or.

The state concedes error but urges the sentence was not intended to be imposed for the misdemeanor count. In any event, the state argues it is moot because Nieves has served the incarceration part of the sentence. However, the record shows he was illegally sentenced on the misdemean- or count.

Accordingly, we reverse the sentence imposed for the misdemeanor and on remand, we direct the trial court to discharge appellant from the probationary portion of the misdemeanor sentence.

AFFIRM in part; VACATE SENTENCE; REMAND.

HARRIS, C.J., and DAUKSCH and W. SHARP, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

622 So. 2d 173, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 8420, 1993 WL 306715, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nieves-v-state-fladistctapp-1993.