Paul v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Paul v. State

681 So. 2d 935, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 11385, 1996 WL 626120

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Paul v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 7894 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 30, 1996·No. No. 95-3840·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s conviction; however we reverse his sentence as to Count I and remand for correction of the written sentence to conform to the court’s oral pronouncement by deleting “violent” from the habitual felony offender sentence. We also reverse appellant’s sentence as to Count IV on the state’s concession the sentence imposed on Count IV must run concurrently to the sentence imposed on Count I. Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 278, 130 L.Ed.2d 195 (1994).

STONE, POLEN and FARMER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s conviction; however we reverse his sentence as to Count I and remand for correction of the written sentence to conform to the court’s oral pronouncement by deleting “violent” from the habitual felony offender sentence. We also reverse appellant’s sentence as to Count IV on the state’s concession the sentence imposed on Count IV must run concurrently to the sentence imposed on Count I. Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 278, 130 L.Ed.2d 195 (1994).

STONE, POLEN and FARMER, JJ., concur.

Paul v. State, 681 So. 2d 935, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 11385, 1996 WL 626120 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

681 So. 2d 935 (Paul v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related