Patmon v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Patmon v. State

528 So. 2d 1216, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1431, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3497, 1988 WL 61877

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 17, 1988

DocketNo. 86-2410

StatusPublished

This text of 528 So. 2d 1216 (Patmon 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

Patmon v. State, 528 So. 2d 1216, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1431, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3497, 1988 WL 61877 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant has filed with this court a motion to withdraw mandate, arguing that our per curiam affirmance creates a miscarriage of justice because his codefendant (who was tried and sentenced in the same proceedings as appellant) was granted a correction of the judgment entered against him and a remand for resentencing by a different and subsequent panel of this court. Douglas v. State, 523 So.2d 704 (Fla.2d DCA 1988). In order to maintain uniformity in the decisions of this court, we withdraw the mandate entered herein, the prior decision in this case and adopt for appellant Patmon the reasoning and ruling in Douglas.

Accordingly, we affirm appellant’s conviction, but remand for correction of the [1217]*1217judgment and the sentencing guidelines scoresheet. Thereafter, appellant will be resentenced if a different sentence is called for.

Mandate and opinion withdrawn; remanded with instructions.

RYDER, A.C.J., and FRANK and HALL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant has filed with this court a motion to withdraw mandate, arguing that our per curiam affirmance creates a miscarriage of justice because his codefendant (who was tried and sentenced in the same proceedings as appellant) was granted a correction of the judgment entered against him and a remand for resentencing by a different and subsequent panel of this court. Douglas v. State, 523 So.2d 704 (Fla.2d DCA 1988). In order to maintain uniformity in the decisions of this court, we withdraw the mandate entered herein, the prior decision in this case and adopt for appellant Patmon the reasoning and ruling in Douglas.

Accordingly, we affirm appellant’s conviction, but remand for correction of the [1217]*1217judgment and the sentencing guidelines scoresheet. Thereafter, appellant will be resentenced if a different sentence is called for.

Mandate and opinion withdrawn; remanded with instructions.

RYDER, A.C.J., and FRANK and HALL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

528 So. 2d 1216, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1431, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3497, 1988 WL 61877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patmon-v-state-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack