Tindall v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tindall v. State

441 So. 2d 677, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 22688

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 21, 1983

DocketNo. 83-183

StatusPublished

This text of 441 So. 2d 677 (Tindall 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

Tindall v. State, 441 So. 2d 677, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 22688 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant raises five points on appeal which we find to be without merit, and we, therefore, affirm his convictions and sentence.

We note, however, that the jury verdict finds appellant guilty of a first degree felony, and he was sentenced according to a first degree felony, but the judgment reflects a second degree felony. We conclude that the error in the judgment probably constitutes a typographical error and, therefore, remand for the trial court to conform the verdict, judgment and sentence.

HOBSON, A.C.J., and RYDER and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant raises five points on appeal which we find to be without merit, and we, therefore, affirm his convictions and sentence.

We note, however, that the jury verdict finds appellant guilty of a first degree felony, and he was sentenced according to a first degree felony, but the judgment reflects a second degree felony. We conclude that the error in the judgment probably constitutes a typographical error and, therefore, remand for the trial court to conform the verdict, judgment and sentence.

HOBSON, A.C.J., and RYDER and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

441 So. 2d 677, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 22688, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tindall-v-state-fladistctapp-1983.