Whatley v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Whatley v. State

640 So. 2d 1201, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 7670, 1994 WL 397597

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 3, 1994

DocketNo. 93-03557

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 640 So. 2d 1201 (Whatley 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

Whatley v. State, 640 So. 2d 1201, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 7670, 1994 WL 397597 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

FULMER, Judge.

The defendant appeals from the sentences imposed after remand from this court for resentencing on his convictions for attempted [1202]*1202murder, aggravated battery and burglary with a battery or while armed. We affirm the trial court’s use of a category one sentencing guidelines scoresheet. See Hayles v. State, 608 So.2d 13 (Fla.1992). However, the judgment designates the burglary offense as a life felony. The state concedes that this offense should be designated a first degree felony punishable by life. Therefore, we reverse and remand for correction of the scrivener’s error. See, e.g., Bell v. State, 635 So.2d 1080 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). The presence of the defendant is not required. See Id.

THREADGILL, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.

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

FULMER, Judge.

The defendant appeals from the sentences imposed after remand from this court for resentencing on his convictions for attempted [1202]*1202murder, aggravated battery and burglary with a battery or while armed. We affirm the trial court’s use of a category one sentencing guidelines scoresheet. See Hayles v. State, 608 So.2d 13 (Fla.1992). However, the judgment designates the burglary offense as a life felony. The state concedes that this offense should be designated a first degree felony punishable by life. Therefore, we reverse and remand for correction of the scrivener’s error. See, e.g., Bell v. State, 635 So.2d 1080 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). The presence of the defendant is not required. See Id.

THREADGILL, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

640 So. 2d 1201, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 7670, 1994 WL 397597, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whatley-v-state-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack