Rogers v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rogers v. State

704 So. 2d 1147, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 903, 1998 WL 39548

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 4, 1998·No. No. 97-0785·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s convictions and sentences. However, the judgment erroneously indicates that appellant pled nolo contendere to two counts of sale or delivery of cocaine near a school and two counts of possession of cocaine. We remand to correct the judgment to reflect that appellant was adjudicated guilty as a result of a jury verdict.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

GLICKSTEIN, DELL and POLEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s convictions and sentences. However, the judgment erroneously indicates that appellant pled nolo contendere to two counts of sale or delivery of cocaine near a school and two counts of possession of cocaine. We remand to correct the judgment to reflect that appellant was adjudicated guilty as a result of a jury verdict.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

GLICKSTEIN, DELL and POLEN, JJ., concur.

Rogers v. State, 704 So. 2d 1147, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 903, 1998 WL 39548 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

704 So. 2d 1147 (Rogers v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.