Whittington v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Whittington v. State

727 So. 2d 282, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 1151, 1999 WL 69350

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 10, 1999

DocketNo. 97-05167

StatusPublished

This text of 727 So. 2d 282 (Whittington 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

Whittington v. State, 727 So. 2d 282, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 1151, 1999 WL 69350 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

THREADGILL, Judge.

The appellant, Andrew Whittington, challenges his judgment and sentence for trafficking in fourteen to twenty-eight grams of methamphetamine in violation of section 893.135(l)(c)l.b., Florida Statutes (1997). He contends there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction, and that the written judgment inaccurately reflects his crime as a level eight offense. We find no merit in Whittington’s contention as to the sufficiency of the evidence and therefore affirm his conviction and sentence. We remand this cause, however, for correction of the written judgment to reflect that the offense for which Whittington was convicted is a level seven, rather than a level eight, offense.

Affirmed, but remanded for corrections.

CAMPBELL, AC.J. and BLUE, JJ., Concur.

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

THREADGILL, Judge.

The appellant, Andrew Whittington, challenges his judgment and sentence for trafficking in fourteen to twenty-eight grams of methamphetamine in violation of section 893.135(l)(c)l.b., Florida Statutes (1997). He contends there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction, and that the written judgment inaccurately reflects his crime as a level eight offense. We find no merit in Whittington’s contention as to the sufficiency of the evidence and therefore affirm his conviction and sentence. We remand this cause, however, for correction of the written judgment to reflect that the offense for which Whittington was convicted is a level seven, rather than a level eight, offense.

Affirmed, but remanded for corrections.

CAMPBELL, AC.J. and BLUE, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

727 So. 2d 282, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 1151, 1999 WL 69350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whittington-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.