Prince v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Prince v. State

613 So. 2d 145, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 2010, 1993 WL 36282

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Prince v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 638 So. 2d 1022 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 17, 1993·No. No. 92-0213·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s convictions but agree with appellant and the state that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive mandatory minimum sentences under the circumstances of this case. See Daniels v. State, 595 So.2d 952 (Fla.1992). Accordingly, we remand with directions that the sentences be made concurrent.

ANSTEAD and WARNER, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s convictions but agree with appellant and the state that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive mandatory minimum sentences under the circumstances of this case. See Daniels v. State, 595 So.2d 952 (Fla.1992). Accordingly, we remand with directions that the sentences be made concurrent.

ANSTEAD and WARNER, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.

Prince v. State, 613 So. 2d 145, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 2010, 1993 WL 36282 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

613 So. 2d 145 (Prince v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related