Short v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Short v. State

685 So. 2d 80, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 13272, 1996 WL 729641

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 20, 1996

DocketNo. 96-2098

StatusPublished

This text of 685 So. 2d 80 (Short 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

Short v. State, 685 So. 2d 80, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 13272, 1996 WL 729641 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Desmond Short appeals the summary denial of his motion for correction and /or clarification of sentence, filed pursuant to Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.800. In his motion, he claimed that the trial court had failed to indicate on the sentencing document whether the instant sentence is to be served concurrently with, or consecutively to, a prior sentence he is currently serving. The trial court properly denied the motion pursuant to rule 3.800 because the sentence imposed did not exceed the maximum period set forth by law for the offenses. See Davis v. State, 661 So.2d 1193 (Fla.1995); State v. Callaway, 658 So.2d 983 (Fla.1995). We note that, pursuant to section 921.16(1), Fla. Stat. (1993), in the absence of court direction, sentences imposed for offenses not charged in the same information must be served consecutively.

AFFIRMED.

MINER, ALLEN and MICKLE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Desmond Short appeals the summary denial of his motion for correction and /or clarification of sentence, filed pursuant to Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.800. In his motion, he claimed that the trial court had failed to indicate on the sentencing document whether the instant sentence is to be served concurrently with, or consecutively to, a prior sentence he is currently serving. The trial court properly denied the motion pursuant to rule 3.800 because the sentence imposed did not exceed the maximum period set forth by law for the offenses. See Davis v. State, 661 So.2d 1193 (Fla.1995); State v. Callaway, 658 So.2d 983 (Fla.1995). We note that, pursuant to section 921.16(1), Fla. Stat. (1993), in the absence of court direction, sentences imposed for offenses not charged in the same information must be served consecutively.

AFFIRMED.

MINER, ALLEN and MICKLE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

685 So. 2d 80, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 13272, 1996 WL 729641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/short-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack