Plant v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Plant v. State

336 So. 2d 437

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 20, 1976

DocketNo. BB-300

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 336 So. 2d 437 (Plant 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

Plant v. State, 336 So. 2d 437 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We here review a judgment and sentence by which appellant was adjudicated guilty upon his plea of nolo contendere, expressly reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress, and the imposition of a sentence of one year and one day. Our examination of the record reveals that there was sufficient evidence which was apparently believed by the trial judge to sustain his denial of appellant’s motion to suppress based upon the police officers’ testimony that appellant consented to the search giving rise to the evidence sought to be suppressed. However the State candidly agrees that the sentence imposed for a misdemeanor of the first degree exceeds that permitted by law. (See F.S. 893.13(1)(f) and F.S. 775.082(4)(a)). Accordingly, we remand for the purpose of the trial judge correcting the sentence. It shall not be necessary for the appellant to be present at the time the sentence is corrected.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

BOYER, C. J., and RAWLS and McGORD, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We here review a judgment and sentence by which appellant was adjudicated guilty upon his plea of nolo contendere, expressly reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress, and the imposition of a sentence of one year and one day. Our examination of the record reveals that there was sufficient evidence which was apparently believed by the trial judge to sustain his denial of appellant’s motion to suppress based upon the police officers’ testimony that appellant consented to the search giving rise to the evidence sought to be suppressed. However the State candidly agrees that the sentence imposed for a misdemeanor of the first degree exceeds that permitted by law. (See F.S. 893.13(1)(f) and F.S. 775.082(4)(a)). Accordingly, we remand for the purpose of the trial judge correcting the sentence. It shall not be necessary for the appellant to be present at the time the sentence is corrected.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

BOYER, C. J., and RAWLS and McGORD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

336 So. 2d 437, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/plant-v-state-fladistctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack