Schaudt v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Schaudt v. State

432 So. 2d 203, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19459

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 27, 1983

DocketNo. 82-2559

StatusPublished

This text of 432 So. 2d 203 (Schaudt 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

Schaudt v. State, 432 So. 2d 203, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19459 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CÜRIAM.

We affirm appellant’s conviction based on our earlier decision in State v. Mallory, 409 So.2d 1222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). However, we remand this case for the following reasons. The jury convicted appellant of misdemeanor possession of marijuana and being a principal in the delivery of marijuana. The judgment, however, indicates that appellant was found guilty of conspiracy to deliver marijuana, being a principal in the delivery of marijuana, and felony possession of marijuana. The judgment should be corrected on remand to conform with the jury verdict. The second reason for remanding this case is that the trial judge imposed an illegal general sentence. Dorfman v. State, 351 So.2d 954 (Fla.1977). Affirmed as to conviction; remanded for correction of sentence and judgment.

BOARDMAN, A.C.J., and DANAHY and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CÜRIAM.

We affirm appellant’s conviction based on our earlier decision in State v. Mallory, 409 So.2d 1222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). However, we remand this case for the following reasons. The jury convicted appellant of misdemeanor possession of marijuana and being a principal in the delivery of marijuana. The judgment, however, indicates that appellant was found guilty of conspiracy to deliver marijuana, being a principal in the delivery of marijuana, and felony possession of marijuana. The judgment should be corrected on remand to conform with the jury verdict. The second reason for remanding this case is that the trial judge imposed an illegal general sentence. Dorfman v. State, 351 So.2d 954 (Fla.1977). Affirmed as to conviction; remanded for correction of sentence and judgment.

BOARDMAN, A.C.J., and DANAHY and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

432 So. 2d 203, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schaudt-v-state-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack