Solomon v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Solomon v. State

693 So. 2d 719, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 5593, 1997 WL 269321

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 21, 1997·No. No. 97-224·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Based on our review of the appellant’s motion to clarify sentence [Fla.R.Crim.P.3.800], the State’s response to our order to show cause, and the record on appeal, the trial court’s order denying the motion to correct sentence is reversed, and the case is remanded with directions that the trial court enter a corrected sentencing order in case 92-19938, indicating that the sentence is to run concurrently with the sentences on appellant’s other cases [93-17331, 93-29254, 93-35428, 93-35599, 93-37818], so as to comply with its oral ruling that the sentences in all of appellant’s eases are to run concurrently with each other.

We find no merit to the remaining issue.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

Based on our review of the appellant’s motion to clarify sentence [Fla.R.Crim.P.3.800], the State’s response to our order to show cause, and the record on appeal, the trial court’s order denying the motion to correct sentence is reversed, and the case is remanded with directions that the trial court enter a corrected sentencing order in case 92-19938, indicating that the sentence is to run concurrently with the sentences on appellant’s other cases [93-17331, 93-29254, 93-35428, 93-35599, 93-37818], so as to comply with its oral ruling that the sentences in all of appellant’s eases are to run concurrently with each other.

We find no merit to the remaining issue.

Reversed and remanded.

Solomon v. State, 693 So. 2d 719, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 5593, 1997 WL 269321 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

693 So. 2d 719 (Solomon v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related