Rodriguez v. State

99 So. 3d 557, 2012 WL 3705092, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 14346
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Rodriguez v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 21 So. 3d 826
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 29, 2012·No. No. 3D12-758·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Among other things, the appellant’s Rule 3.800(a) motion complains that his 1996 sentencing order erroneously reflects that he was sentenced to life as an habitual felony offender on counts two and three of the information at a time when section 775.084, Florida Statutes, did not provide for enhanced sentences for life felonies such as the ones alleged in those two counts. Because the oral pronouncement of sentence reflects that he actually was not sentenced as an habitual felony offender on these counts, the sentencing order is hereby amended to conform with the trial court’s oral pronouncement, which was in compliance with then-prevailing law. See State v. Akins, 69 So.3d 261 (Fla.2011).

[558]*558Otherwise, the order denying post conviction relief is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Rodriguez v. State, 99 So. 3d 557, 2012 WL 3705092, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 14346 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

99 So. 3d 557 (Rodriguez v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Akins
69 So. 3d 261 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2011)