Shervis v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Shervis v. State

808 So. 2d 285, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 2206, 2002 WL 313218

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 1, 2002

DocketNo. 1D00-1353

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 808 So. 2d 285 (Shervis 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

Shervis v. State, 808 So. 2d 285, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 2206, 2002 WL 313218 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Convicted by a jury of second degree murder and attempted second degree murder, appellant, Christopher Shervis, challenges both his conviction and the sentence of concurrent life terms in prison imposed by the trial court. We do not address appellant’s unpreserved challenge to the [286]*286convictions because appellant has made no showing of fundamental error. We affirm the concurrent life sentences because they are legal sentences under section 921.0024(2), Florida Statutes (Supp.1998). See Brown v. State, 806 So.2d 576 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (“Brown further argues that the trial court erred in imposing a life sentence for the offense of attempted second-degree murder with a weapon in count two and a consecutive sentence for the offense of aggravated battery with a weapon in count one. Because Brown’s total points were greater than 363, the trial court was authorized to sentence Brown to life imprisonment pursuant to the Criminal Punishment Code, section 921.0024(2), Florida Statutes (1999).”).

AFFIRMED.

KAHN, PADOVANO and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Convicted by a jury of second degree murder and attempted second degree murder, appellant, Christopher Shervis, challenges both his conviction and the sentence of concurrent life terms in prison imposed by the trial court. We do not address appellant’s unpreserved challenge to the [286]*286convictions because appellant has made no showing of fundamental error. We affirm the concurrent life sentences because they are legal sentences under section 921.0024(2), Florida Statutes (Supp.1998). See Brown v. State, 806 So.2d 576 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (“Brown further argues that the trial court erred in imposing a life sentence for the offense of attempted second-degree murder with a weapon in count two and a consecutive sentence for the offense of aggravated battery with a weapon in count one. Because Brown’s total points were greater than 363, the trial court was authorized to sentence Brown to life imprisonment pursuant to the Criminal Punishment Code, section 921.0024(2), Florida Statutes (1999).”).

AFFIRMED.

KAHN, PADOVANO and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

808 So. 2d 285, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 2206, 2002 WL 313218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shervis-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack