Wemett v. State

529 So. 2d 1288, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2069, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3989, 1988 WL 89504
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 31, 1988·No. No. 88-150·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

BARFIELD, Judge.

The sole issue raised by appellant in his initial brief is that the trial court erred in retaining jurisdiction over one-half of each of his sentences. Thereafter, appellee moved this court to relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court so that it “may then reduce the retention of its jurisdiction to one-third of Appellant’s cumulative sentence.”

We elect to construe appellee’s motion for relinquishment of jurisdiction as a confession of error, see Hope v. State, 513 So.2d 217 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Accordingly, appellant’s sentence is vacated and this cause is remanded for resentencing.

MILLS and BOOTH, JJ., concur.

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

Wemett v. State, 529 So. 2d 1288, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2069, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3989, 1988 WL 89504 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

529 So. 2d 1288 (Wemett v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wemett v. State
567 So. 2d 882 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1990)
Wemett v. State
547 So. 2d 955 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)