Peeples v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Peeples v. State

562 So. 2d 863, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 4628, 1990 WL 89748

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 27, 1990

DocketNos. 87-02638, 89-02297

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 562 So. 2d 863 (Peeples 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

Peeples v. State, 562 So. 2d 863, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 4628, 1990 WL 89748 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Maxel Roshond Peeples, challenges the judgments and sentences imposed upon him after he was found guilty of certain charges contained in a multi-count information. We agree with the appellant’s contention that the trial court erred by imposing a three year minimum mandatory provision in connection with his conviction and sentence under count XVIII of the information. The appellant was not charged with, or found guilty of, having a firearm in his possession at the time he committed the robbery charged in this count of the information. § 775.087(2), Fla.Stat. (1985).

We find no merit in any of the appellant’s other contentions concerning his convictions or sentences. We, accordingly, affirm all of the judgments and sentences, but remand for the purpose of striking the three year mandatory provision imposed upon the appellant in connection with count XVIII of the information.

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

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Maxel Roshond Peeples, challenges the judgments and sentences imposed upon him after he was found guilty of certain charges contained in a multi-count information. We agree with the appellant’s contention that the trial court erred by imposing a three year minimum mandatory provision in connection with his conviction and sentence under count XVIII of the information. The appellant was not charged with, or found guilty of, having a firearm in his possession at the time he committed the robbery charged in this count of the information. § 775.087(2), Fla.Stat. (1985).

We find no merit in any of the appellant’s other contentions concerning his convictions or sentences. We, accordingly, affirm all of the judgments and sentences, but remand for the purpose of striking the three year mandatory provision imposed upon the appellant in connection with count XVIII of the information.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

562 So. 2d 863, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 4628, 1990 WL 89748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peeples-v-state-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack