Tremaine v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tremaine v. State

698 So. 2d 1385, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 10631, 1997 WL 578317

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 19, 1997

DocketNo. 95-02791

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 698 So. 2d 1385 (Tremaine 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

Tremaine v. State, 698 So. 2d 1385, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 10631, 1997 WL 578317 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

FRANK, Judge.

Troy Tremaine appeals from his judgment and sentence for aggravated battery. We affirm the judgment and sentence, but strike certain portions of the sentence and conditions of probation.

Tremaine correctly argues that the trial court erred when it ordered his sentence for aggravated battery to run consecutive to any sentence to be imposed in a case pending in Ohio. See Pattmon v. State, 404 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Keel v. State, 321 So.2d 86 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Hummell v. State, 693 So.2d 113 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). We, therefore, strike that portion of his sentence. We also strike probation condition 14 which states, “[t]his sentence consecutive to any VOP or conditional release from incarceration in Ohio.” See Drew v. State, 478 So.2d 69 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).

Finally, we strike that portion of condition 12 which requires Tremaine to pay for substance evaluation. See Diaz v. State, 691 So.2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).

Affirmed and remanded with instructions to the trial court to correct the sentence and probation order in accordance with this opinion.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.

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

FRANK, Judge.

Troy Tremaine appeals from his judgment and sentence for aggravated battery. We affirm the judgment and sentence, but strike certain portions of the sentence and conditions of probation.

Tremaine correctly argues that the trial court erred when it ordered his sentence for aggravated battery to run consecutive to any sentence to be imposed in a case pending in Ohio. See Pattmon v. State, 404 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Keel v. State, 321 So.2d 86 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Hummell v. State, 693 So.2d 113 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). We, therefore, strike that portion of his sentence. We also strike probation condition 14 which states, “[t]his sentence consecutive to any VOP or conditional release from incarceration in Ohio.” See Drew v. State, 478 So.2d 69 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).

Finally, we strike that portion of condition 12 which requires Tremaine to pay for substance evaluation. See Diaz v. State, 691 So.2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).

Affirmed and remanded with instructions to the trial court to correct the sentence and probation order in accordance with this opinion.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

698 So. 2d 1385, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 10631, 1997 WL 578317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tremaine-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack