Stover v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stover v. State

612 So. 2d 661, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 194, 1993 WL 8914

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 20, 1993

DocketNo. 92-0905

StatusPublished

This text of 612 So. 2d 661 (Stover 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

Stover v. State, 612 So. 2d 661, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 194, 1993 WL 8914 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s convictions but reverse and remand on two sentencing issues.

The appellant was convicted of Count I, driving under the influence with damage to the person or property of another, and of Count II, leaving the scene of an accident with death or personal injury. The trial court ordered restitution for the damages caused by the accident but attached the restitution provision to the sentence for leaving the scene of an accident. We construe State v. Williams, 520 So.2d 276 (Fla.1988), as holding that such damages may not be ordered as restitution incidental to a conviction for leaving the scene of an accident, since such damages are not causally related to that offense. However, since appellant was convicted of driving under the influence causing injury, a charge that is related to the damages in question, we remand with directions that the restitution provision be changed to reflect that it is part of the sentence for that charge.

We also agree with appellant that there is a discrepancy between the oral sentence pronounced in open court on Count I and the written sentence thereafter entered. On this issue we remand with directions that the written sentence be changed to conform to the oral pronouncements contained in the transcript of the sentencing hearing.

Accordingly, we affirm appellant’s convictions but remand with directions that appellant's sentence be corrected in accord herewith.

ANSTEAD and WARNER, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM C. JR., Senior Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s convictions but reverse and remand on two sentencing issues.

The appellant was convicted of Count I, driving under the influence with damage to the person or property of another, and of Count II, leaving the scene of an accident with death or personal injury. The trial court ordered restitution for the damages caused by the accident but attached the restitution provision to the sentence for leaving the scene of an accident. We construe State v. Williams, 520 So.2d 276 (Fla.1988), as holding that such damages may not be ordered as restitution incidental to a conviction for leaving the scene of an accident, since such damages are not causally related to that offense. However, since appellant was convicted of driving under the influence causing injury, a charge that is related to the damages in question, we remand with directions that the restitution provision be changed to reflect that it is part of the sentence for that charge.

We also agree with appellant that there is a discrepancy between the oral sentence pronounced in open court on Count I and the written sentence thereafter entered. On this issue we remand with directions that the written sentence be changed to conform to the oral pronouncements contained in the transcript of the sentencing hearing.

Accordingly, we affirm appellant’s convictions but remand with directions that appellant's sentence be corrected in accord herewith.

ANSTEAD and WARNER, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM C. JR., Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

612 So. 2d 661, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 194, 1993 WL 8914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stover-v-state-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack