Steele v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Steele v. State

575 So. 2d 311, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 1569, 1991 WL 24856

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 1, 1991·No. No. 90-00613·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the defendant’s numerous convictions and sentences.

We disagree with the defendant’s contention that his probationary split sentence of twelve years imprisonment followed by three years probation was improper. See Poore v. State, 531 So.2d 161 (Fla.1988).

In case number 89-276, we strike the fine imposed pursuant to section 775.0835, Florida Statutes (1987), because there was no showing of the statutory requirement that the offenses involved resulted in the injury or death to the victim.

Affirmed, as modified by this opinion.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and FRANK and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the defendant’s numerous convictions and sentences.

We disagree with the defendant’s contention that his probationary split sentence of twelve years imprisonment followed by three years probation was improper. See Poore v. State, 531 So.2d 161 (Fla.1988).

In case number 89-276, we strike the fine imposed pursuant to section 775.0835, Florida Statutes (1987), because there was no showing of the statutory requirement that the offenses involved resulted in the injury or death to the victim.

Affirmed, as modified by this opinion.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and FRANK and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

Steele v. State, 575 So. 2d 311, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 1569, 1991 WL 24856 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

575 So. 2d 311 (Steele v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related