Stroud v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stroud v. State

82 So. 3d 1147, 2012 WL 716489, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 3679

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 7, 2012

DocketNo. 2D11-1208

StatusPublished

This text of 82 So. 3d 1147 (Stroud 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

Stroud v. State, 82 So. 3d 1147, 2012 WL 716489, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 3679 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

VILLANTI, Judge.

Rubin Stroud challenges his convictions and sentences for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. We affirm his convictions without comment. As to his sentences, we write because Stroud correctly argues that the written judgment and sentences fail to accurately reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement that his multiple minimum mandatory sentences run concurrently. See Denson v. State, 633 So.2d 1137, 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (explaining that multiple minimum mandatory sentences must be imposed concurrently rather than consecutively when the convictions do not arise from separate incidents). However, Stroud did not properly preserve this issue by means of a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) motion. Therefore, we affirm his sentences without prejudice to any right Stroud might have to raise the sentencing issue in a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) or 3.850. See Jackson v. State, 983 So.2d 562, 568 (Fla.2008); McElrath v. State, 10 So.3d 1209, 1210 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).

Affirmed.

DAVIS and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.

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

VILLANTI, Judge.

Rubin Stroud challenges his convictions and sentences for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. We affirm his convictions without comment. As to his sentences, we write because Stroud correctly argues that the written judgment and sentences fail to accurately reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement that his multiple minimum mandatory sentences run concurrently. See Denson v. State, 633 So.2d 1137, 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (explaining that multiple minimum mandatory sentences must be imposed concurrently rather than consecutively when the convictions do not arise from separate incidents). However, Stroud did not properly preserve this issue by means of a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) motion. Therefore, we affirm his sentences without prejudice to any right Stroud might have to raise the sentencing issue in a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) or 3.850. See Jackson v. State, 983 So.2d 562, 568 (Fla.2008); McElrath v. State, 10 So.3d 1209, 1210 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).

Affirmed.

DAVIS and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 So. 3d 1147, 2012 WL 716489, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 3679, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stroud-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack