Oropesa v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Oropesa v. State

606 So. 2d 1289, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 11441, 1992 WL 332637

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 13, 1992

DocketNo. 91-01512

StatusPublished

This text of 606 So. 2d 1289 (Oropesa 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

Oropesa v. State, 606 So. 2d 1289, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 11441, 1992 WL 332637 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Finding a valid departure reason supported by the record, Scurry v. State, 489 So.2d 25 (Fla.1986), Rey v. State, 509 So.2d 1332 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), we affirm the appellant’s convictions and sentence. However, we remand for correction of the written sentence to comport with the trial court’s oral pronouncement at sentencing that the terms be served concurrently. Perez v. State, 498 So.2d 1005 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).

DANAHY, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and FRANK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Finding a valid departure reason supported by the record, Scurry v. State, 489 So.2d 25 (Fla.1986), Rey v. State, 509 So.2d 1332 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), we affirm the appellant’s convictions and sentence. However, we remand for correction of the written sentence to comport with the trial court’s oral pronouncement at sentencing that the terms be served concurrently. Perez v. State, 498 So.2d 1005 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).

DANAHY, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and FRANK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

606 So. 2d 1289, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 11441, 1992 WL 332637, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oropesa-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack