Stoker v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stoker v. State

449 So. 2d 408, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12888

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 4, 1984

DocketNo. 83-762

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 449 So. 2d 408 (Stoker 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

Stoker v. State, 449 So. 2d 408, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12888 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

LEHAN, Judge.

Defendant was convicted and sentenced for robbery with a weapon, in violation of section 812.13(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1981), and grand theft, in violation of section 812.014(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1981). Defendant raises three points on appeal. We find no merit in defendant’s first contention that photograph lineup identification procedures were improperly conducted. As to defendant’s second point, we find no double jeopardy in his convictions.

We agree with defendant’s last point and strike that portion of his sentence which requires him to pay restitution as a condition of parole. See Brown v. State, 427 So.2d 271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Alexander v. State, 425 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).

GRIMES, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and LEHAN, JJ., concur.

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

LEHAN, Judge.

Defendant was convicted and sentenced for robbery with a weapon, in violation of section 812.13(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1981), and grand theft, in violation of section 812.014(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1981). Defendant raises three points on appeal. We find no merit in defendant’s first contention that photograph lineup identification procedures were improperly conducted. As to defendant’s second point, we find no double jeopardy in his convictions.

We agree with defendant’s last point and strike that portion of his sentence which requires him to pay restitution as a condition of parole. See Brown v. State, 427 So.2d 271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Alexander v. State, 425 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).

GRIMES, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and LEHAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

449 So. 2d 408, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12888, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stoker-v-state-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack