Shultz v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Shultz v. State

567 So. 2d 48, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 7389

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 26, 1990·No. No. 88-03476·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s convictions for five separate drug-related offenses, as well as the concurrent five-year sentences imposed after he was found guilty of violating probation. However, we remand for correction of the written sentencing forms to reflect that this is not a guideline sentence. The offenses for which appellant was [49]*49charged took place prior to the effective date of sentencing guidelines, and the record contains no evidence that appellant affirmatively requested a guideline sentence. See, e.g., Jackson v. State, 478 So.2d 515 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).

LEHAN, A.C.J., and FRANK and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s convictions for five separate drug-related offenses, as well as the concurrent five-year sentences imposed after he was found guilty of violating probation. However, we remand for correction of the written sentencing forms to reflect that this is not a guideline sentence. The offenses for which appellant was [49]*49charged took place prior to the effective date of sentencing guidelines, and the record contains no evidence that appellant affirmatively requested a guideline sentence. See, e.g., Jackson v. State, 478 So.2d 515 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).

LEHAN, A.C.J., and FRANK and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.

Shultz v. State, 567 So. 2d 48, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 7389 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

567 So. 2d 48 (Shultz v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related