Phan v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Phan v. State

686 So. 2d 21, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 7870, 1996 WL 417530

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 26, 1996

DocketNo. 94-01546

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 686 So. 2d 21 (Phan 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

Phan v. State, 686 So. 2d 21, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 7870, 1996 WL 417530 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, To Van Phan, challenges his convictions for aggravated assault, two counts of aggravated battery and one count of battery. We find merit only in two challenges to his sentence. The defendant asserts that the order of probation incorrectly states that he entered a guilty plea. We remand for correction of the scrivener’s error to reflect that the defendant was tried and found guilty by a jury. The defendant need not be present. We also strike the cost of $2 imposed pursuant to section 943.25(13), Florida Statutes (1993), and the assessment of $15 payable to the Hillsborough County Court Improvement Fund. See Reyes v. State, 655 So.2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (en banc). In all other respects, the judgment and sentence is affirmed.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and FULMER and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, To Van Phan, challenges his convictions for aggravated assault, two counts of aggravated battery and one count of battery. We find merit only in two challenges to his sentence. The defendant asserts that the order of probation incorrectly states that he entered a guilty plea. We remand for correction of the scrivener’s error to reflect that the defendant was tried and found guilty by a jury. The defendant need not be present. We also strike the cost of $2 imposed pursuant to section 943.25(13), Florida Statutes (1993), and the assessment of $15 payable to the Hillsborough County Court Improvement Fund. See Reyes v. State, 655 So.2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (en banc). In all other respects, the judgment and sentence is affirmed.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and FULMER and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

686 So. 2d 21, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 7870, 1996 WL 417530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phan-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack