Tedder v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tedder v. State

557 So. 2d 683, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 1444, 1990 WL 21421

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 7, 1990

DocketNo. 90-00397

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 557 So. 2d 683 (Tedder 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

Tedder v. State, 557 So. 2d 683, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 1444, 1990 WL 21421 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Robert Dean Tedder timely appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence. In his motion, Tedder raised several points, only one of which merits discussion.

Tedder contends that he was illegally sentenced to consecutive minimum mandatory sentences for separate offenses arising from a single criminal episode. If this is correct, Tedder might be entitled to relief. See Bass v. State, 530 So.2d 282 (Fla.1988); Palmer v. State, 438 So.2d 1 (Fla.1983). The attachments to the trial court’s order do not refute Tedder’s allegation.

Accordingly, we affirm in part the trial court’s denial of Tedder’s motion, and reverse the trial court’s denial of that portion of appellant’s motion dealing with the allegedly illegal consecutive minimum mandatory sentences. On remand, unless the files and records of the case conclusively show that Tedder is not entitled to relief, the trial court shall order the state attorney to file an answer within a time certain. After receipt of the answer, the court shall determine whether an evidentiary hearing is required. If the court should again deny Tedder’s motion, he has thirty days in which to appeal.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Robert Dean Tedder timely appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence. In his motion, Tedder raised several points, only one of which merits discussion.

Tedder contends that he was illegally sentenced to consecutive minimum mandatory sentences for separate offenses arising from a single criminal episode. If this is correct, Tedder might be entitled to relief. See Bass v. State, 530 So.2d 282 (Fla.1988); Palmer v. State, 438 So.2d 1 (Fla.1983). The attachments to the trial court’s order do not refute Tedder’s allegation.

Accordingly, we affirm in part the trial court’s denial of Tedder’s motion, and reverse the trial court’s denial of that portion of appellant’s motion dealing with the allegedly illegal consecutive minimum mandatory sentences. On remand, unless the files and records of the case conclusively show that Tedder is not entitled to relief, the trial court shall order the state attorney to file an answer within a time certain. After receipt of the answer, the court shall determine whether an evidentiary hearing is required. If the court should again deny Tedder’s motion, he has thirty days in which to appeal.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

557 So. 2d 683, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 1444, 1990 WL 21421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tedder-v-state-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack