Ware v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ware v. State

652 So. 2d 402, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 1306, 1995 WL 59629

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 15, 1995

DocketNo. 93-01655

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 652 So. 2d 402 (Ware 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

Ware v. State, 652 So. 2d 402, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 1306, 1995 WL 59629 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Robert Lane Ware appeals his convictions for exploitation of an aged person, as proscribed by section 415.111(5), Florida Statutes (1991), and grand theft. For the reasons stated in our decision filed on this same date in his codefendant’s case, see Deranger v. State, 652 So.2d 400 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), we reverse Mr. Ware’s conviction for exploitation of an aged person, and affirm his conviction for grand theft. Because our reversal of his conviction for exploitation affects his guidelines scoresheet computation, we reverse his sentence for grand theft and remand for resentencing. Upon remand, the trial court should also correct the judgment to reflect that the jury found Mr. Ware guilty of grand theft, a third degree felony. We reject his arguments that the trial court erred in denying his special requested jury instruction and in imposing restitution.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing.

PATTERSON, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Robert Lane Ware appeals his convictions for exploitation of an aged person, as proscribed by section 415.111(5), Florida Statutes (1991), and grand theft. For the reasons stated in our decision filed on this same date in his codefendant’s case, see Deranger v. State, 652 So.2d 400 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), we reverse Mr. Ware’s conviction for exploitation of an aged person, and affirm his conviction for grand theft. Because our reversal of his conviction for exploitation affects his guidelines scoresheet computation, we reverse his sentence for grand theft and remand for resentencing. Upon remand, the trial court should also correct the judgment to reflect that the jury found Mr. Ware guilty of grand theft, a third degree felony. We reject his arguments that the trial court erred in denying his special requested jury instruction and in imposing restitution.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing.

PATTERSON, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

652 So. 2d 402, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 1306, 1995 WL 59629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ware-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack