Zeigler v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Zeigler v. State

813 So. 2d 286, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 5067, 2002 WL 553417

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 16, 2002

DocketNo. 1D01-343

StatusPublished

This text of 813 So. 2d 286 (Zeigler 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

Zeigler v. State, 813 So. 2d 286, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 5067, 2002 WL 553417 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this criminal case, appellant raises two points. On the first point, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in handling the purported discovery violation. See, e.g., Hayden v. State, 760 So.2d 1031, 1033 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (‘When the trial court learns of a possible discovery violation, the court must determine: 1) whether the violation was inadvertent or willful, 2) whether the violation was trivial or substantial, and 3) what effect the violation had on the defendant’s ability to properly prepare for trial.... After considering these factors, the court has the discretion to fashion an appropriate remedy.”). As the State properly concedes on the second point, however, the trial court has mistakenly sentenced appellant, on Count II, for a first degree felony instead of a second degree felony. Accordingly, we AFFIRM appellant’s convictions, but VACATE his sentence on Count II and REMAND for resentencing.

BOOTH, MINER, and KAHN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this criminal case, appellant raises two points. On the first point, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in handling the purported discovery violation. See, e.g., Hayden v. State, 760 So.2d 1031, 1033 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (‘When the trial court learns of a possible discovery violation, the court must determine: 1) whether the violation was inadvertent or willful, 2) whether the violation was trivial or substantial, and 3) what effect the violation had on the defendant’s ability to properly prepare for trial.... After considering these factors, the court has the discretion to fashion an appropriate remedy.”). As the State properly concedes on the second point, however, the trial court has mistakenly sentenced appellant, on Count II, for a first degree felony instead of a second degree felony. Accordingly, we AFFIRM appellant’s convictions, but VACATE his sentence on Count II and REMAND for resentencing.

BOOTH, MINER, and KAHN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

813 So. 2d 286, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 5067, 2002 WL 553417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zeigler-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack