Profita v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Profita v. State

664 So. 2d 1176, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 13375, 1995 WL 759136

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 27, 1995

DocketNo. 95-0821

StatusPublished

This text of 664 So. 2d 1176 (Profita 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

Profita v. State, 664 So. 2d 1176, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 13375, 1995 WL 759136 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The state concedes that the appellant’s sentencing order failed to reflect the appropriate credit for time that the appellant served in jail prior to his sentencing. We cannot determine from the record which number of days is the proper number because the plea, order of probation, and sentence each use different figures. Therefore, we remand to the trial court for correction of the appellant’s sentence. See Kio v. State, 624 So.2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), rev. denied, 634 So.2d 627 (Fla.1994).

The state’s contention that the entire sentence should be reconsidered because the trial court used the wrong scoresheet was not preserved for appeal. See Cannady v. State, 620 So.2d 165 (Fla.1993).

Reversed and remanded for correction of sentence.

GLICKSTEIN, WARNER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The state concedes that the appellant’s sentencing order failed to reflect the appropriate credit for time that the appellant served in jail prior to his sentencing. We cannot determine from the record which number of days is the proper number because the plea, order of probation, and sentence each use different figures. Therefore, we remand to the trial court for correction of the appellant’s sentence. See Kio v. State, 624 So.2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), rev. denied, 634 So.2d 627 (Fla.1994).

The state’s contention that the entire sentence should be reconsidered because the trial court used the wrong scoresheet was not preserved for appeal. See Cannady v. State, 620 So.2d 165 (Fla.1993).

Reversed and remanded for correction of sentence.

GLICKSTEIN, WARNER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

664 So. 2d 1176, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 13375, 1995 WL 759136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/profita-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack