Tiger v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tiger v. State

764 So. 2d 4, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 14695, 1998 WL 796515

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Tiger v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 764 So. 2d 824 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 18, 1998·No. No. 97-2333·Published

Opinion

MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

Appellant asks this court to recall its mandate and allow consideration of an argument not previously raised regarding appellant’s allegedly illegal sentence. We have considered appellant’s supplemental brief and conclude his sentence was not illegal. The court properly sentenced appellant as a habitual violent felony offender, where appellant was convicted of aggravated battery, a felony, on December 12, 1991, within five years of the commission of the instant offense on September 15, 1996. § 775.084(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1995). Appellant’s motion for rehearing is denied.

POLEN, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

Appellant asks this court to recall its mandate and allow consideration of an argument not previously raised regarding appellant’s allegedly illegal sentence. We have considered appellant’s supplemental brief and conclude his sentence was not illegal. The court properly sentenced appellant as a habitual violent felony offender, where appellant was convicted of aggravated battery, a felony, on December 12, 1991, within five years of the commission of the instant offense on September 15, 1996. § 775.084(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1995). Appellant’s motion for rehearing is denied.

POLEN, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Tiger v. State, 764 So. 2d 4, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 14695, 1998 WL 796515 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

764 So. 2d 4 (Tiger v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.