Pioquinto v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pioquinto v. State

656 So. 2d 552, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 6281, 1995 WL 340675

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 9, 1995

DocketNo. 93-03414

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 656 So. 2d 552 (Pioquinto 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

Pioquinto v. State, 656 So. 2d 552, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 6281, 1995 WL 340675 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

BLUE, Judge.

Moisés Pioquinto appeals his convictions and sentences for manslaughter and aggravated battery. We affirm the convictions. However, we agree with Pioquinto that his sentences are improper and, therefore, reverse and remand for resentencing.

Pioquinto was sentenced within the guidelines as follows: count one — manslaughter— fourteen years in prison; count two — aggravated battery — three years minimum mandatory prison sentence, consecutive to count one. It was error for the sentences to be structured so that Pioquinto serves the mandatory sentence at the end of his total prison term. This situation deprives Pioquinto of the possible benefit of control release on the nonmandatory portion of his sentence. See Ricardo v. State, 608 So.2d 93 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Therefore, we reverse the sentences. On remand, the sentences shall be reimposed so that the minimum mandatory sentence is served first.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for resentencing.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.

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

BLUE, Judge.

Moisés Pioquinto appeals his convictions and sentences for manslaughter and aggravated battery. We affirm the convictions. However, we agree with Pioquinto that his sentences are improper and, therefore, reverse and remand for resentencing.

Pioquinto was sentenced within the guidelines as follows: count one — manslaughter— fourteen years in prison; count two — aggravated battery — three years minimum mandatory prison sentence, consecutive to count one. It was error for the sentences to be structured so that Pioquinto serves the mandatory sentence at the end of his total prison term. This situation deprives Pioquinto of the possible benefit of control release on the nonmandatory portion of his sentence. See Ricardo v. State, 608 So.2d 93 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Therefore, we reverse the sentences. On remand, the sentences shall be reimposed so that the minimum mandatory sentence is served first.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for resentencing.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

656 So. 2d 552, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 6281, 1995 WL 340675, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pioquinto-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack