Roman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Roman v. State

93 So. 3d 1193, 2012 WL 3192737, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 13199

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Roman v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 7359 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 8, 2012·No. No. 4D11-1034·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In the order denying Roman’s motion for post-conviction relief, the trial court fully adopted the state’s written response to Roman’s motion. However, in the state’s written response, the state conceded that Roman was entitled to ninety-seven days’ jail credit. The trial court did not grant the jail credit or explain why the state’s concession of error was incorrect. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings. We affirm all other aspects of the order.

Reversed in part and affirmed in part.

HAZOURI, DAMOORGIAN and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In the order denying Roman’s motion for post-conviction relief, the trial court fully adopted the state’s written response to Roman’s motion. However, in the state’s written response, the state conceded that Roman was entitled to ninety-seven days’ jail credit. The trial court did not grant the jail credit or explain why the state’s concession of error was incorrect. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings. We affirm all other aspects of the order.

Reversed in part and affirmed in part.

HAZOURI, DAMOORGIAN and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

Roman v. State, 93 So. 3d 1193, 2012 WL 3192737, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 13199 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

93 So. 3d 1193 (Roman v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.