Randolph v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Randolph v. State

650 So. 2d 1051, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 88, 1995 WL 7702

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 11, 1995

DocketNo. 92-2799

StatusPublished

This text of 650 So. 2d 1051 (Randolph 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

Randolph v. State, 650 So. 2d 1051, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 88, 1995 WL 7702 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Alfred Randolph, was tried by jury and convicted of two counts of petit theft and one count of grand theft. His case was assigned to the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit’s special habitual felony offender division of the circuit court. Appellant was declared an habitual felony offender and sentenced to ten years in state prison on the grand theft charge and to sixty days for each of the petit theft counts. In accordance with Hartley v. State, 650 So.2d 1044 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), we affirm appellant’s conviction, but vacate the ten year sentence for grand theft and remand for re-sentencing before a different [1052]*1052trial judge. We have considered the other issues raised by appellant and find no error.

POLEN, FARMER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Alfred Randolph, was tried by jury and convicted of two counts of petit theft and one count of grand theft. His case was assigned to the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit’s special habitual felony offender division of the circuit court. Appellant was declared an habitual felony offender and sentenced to ten years in state prison on the grand theft charge and to sixty days for each of the petit theft counts. In accordance with Hartley v. State, 650 So.2d 1044 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), we affirm appellant’s conviction, but vacate the ten year sentence for grand theft and remand for re-sentencing before a different [1052]*1052trial judge. We have considered the other issues raised by appellant and find no error.

POLEN, FARMER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

650 So. 2d 1051, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 88, 1995 WL 7702, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/randolph-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack