Short v. State

685 So. 2d 80, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 13272, 1996 WL 729641
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Short v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 6287
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 20, 1996·No. No. 96-2098·Published

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

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

685 So. 2d 80 (Short v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Callaway
658 So. 2d 983 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1995)
Davis v. State
661 So. 2d 1193 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1995)