Petit-Homme v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Petit-Homme v. State

616 So. 2d 642, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 4736, 1993 WL 130961

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 28, 1993·No. No. 92-1915·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to suppress. See Johnson v. State, 438 So.2d 774 (Fla.1983), cert, denied, 465 U.S. 1051, 104 S.Ct. 1329, 79 L.Ed.2d 724 (1984). However, we remand for resentencing to determine the appropriate credit for time spent in jail. The trial court informed appellant that he was entitled to such credit, and the only issue to be decided on remand is the actual number of days. See Brown v. State, 584 So.2d 209 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

GLICKSTEIN, C.J., GUNTHER, J., and WALDEN, JAMES H., Senior Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to suppress. See Johnson v. State, 438 So.2d 774 (Fla.1983), cert, denied, 465 U.S. 1051, 104 S.Ct. 1329, 79 L.Ed.2d 724 (1984). However, we remand for resentencing to determine the appropriate credit for time spent in jail. The trial court informed appellant that he was entitled to such credit, and the only issue to be decided on remand is the actual number of days. See Brown v. State, 584 So.2d 209 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

GLICKSTEIN, C.J., GUNTHER, J., and WALDEN, JAMES H., Senior Judge, concur.

Petit-Homme v. State, 616 So. 2d 642, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 4736, 1993 WL 130961 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

616 So. 2d 642 (Petit-Homme v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related