Seago v. State

627 So. 2d 1316, 1993 WL 504582
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 10, 1993
Docket92-04036
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 627 So. 2d 1316 (Seago 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
Seago v. State, 627 So. 2d 1316, 1993 WL 504582 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

627 So.2d 1316 (1993)

Eddie SEAGO, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 92-04036.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

December 10, 1993.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Karen K. Purdy, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Johnny T. Salgado, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Eddie Seago appeals from a resentencing on three counts of a five count information. He argues that the trial court erred when, after vacating the conviction and sentence imposed in count I it resentenced him to consecutive prison terms on counts II, IV and V, when those sentences had previously been imposed concurrently. We agree and reverse.

The appellant pleaded guilty to count I dealing in stolen property, count II uttering a forged instrument, count III fleeing to elude, count IV battery on a law enforcement officer and count V resisting arrest with violence. He was initially sentenced to fifteen years in prison on count I; five years concurrent on count II; time served on count III; and five years concurrent on counts IV and V.

The trial court later set aside the dealing in stolen property conviction under State v. Camp, 596 So.2d 1055 (Fla. 1992). Appellant was resentenced on the other counts as follows: count II five years prison; count III time served; count IV five years consecutive; and count V two years consecutive. The resentencing took place two and a half years after the original sentencing.

This court in Wilhelm v. State, 543 So.2d 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), held that a trial court, when correcting an illegal sentence on one count of an information, does not have the authority to modify legal sentences that have been rendered on the other counts. See also Lane v. State, 627 So.2d 556 (Fla. 2d DCA Nov. 24, 1993); Fasenmyer v. State, 457 So.2d 1361 (Fla. 1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1035, 105 S.Ct. 1407, 84 L.Ed.2d 796 (1985).

Reversed and remanded with directions to the trial court to reinstate the original sentences on counts II through V.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., BLUE, J., and BROWNELL, SCOTT M., Associate Judge, concur.

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

Related

STATE OF FLORIDA vs TIMOTHY DONALD JANES
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2022
Horace Cummings v. State of Florida
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2019
Hughes v. State
177 So. 3d 689 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
Reynolds v. State
116 So. 3d 558 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2013)
Bernal v. State
76 So. 3d 1112 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
Delemos v. State
969 So. 2d 544 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)
Pitts v. State
935 So. 2d 634 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
Kenny v. State
916 So. 2d 38 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Jones v. State
651 So. 2d 832 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Gordon v. State
635 So. 2d 1017 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
627 So. 2d 1316, 1993 WL 504582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seago-v-state-fladistctapp-1993.