Urquiaga v. State
624 So. 2d 810, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 9747, 1993 WL 392483
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 28, 1993·No. Nos. 93-769, 92-1156·Published·Cited by 2 cases
Opinion
Rafael Urquiaga appeals an order denying his motion to correct his sentence to conform to the sentencing judge’s oral pronouncements. After review of the sentencing transcript, we agree with appellant that the orally announced sentence called for two concurrent three-year mandatory minimum sentences, not consecutive mandatory minimum sentences. The order under review is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to correct the sentencing order ae-cordingly.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Urquiaga v. State, 624 So. 2d 810, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 9747, 1993 WL 392483 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).
624 So. 2d 810 (Urquiaga v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Nodal v. State
650 So. 2d 696 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Katzin v. Mansdorf
624 So. 2d 810 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)