JOSEPH JAMES BARRINGER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 1979-06-20
No. 79-20
GRIMES, C. J., and OTT, J., concur.
372 So. 2d 196 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1979)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that the resentencing did not impose a harsher punishment than the original sentences, despite the identical terms, and found no merit in other points raised.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant pled guilty to burglary, sale, and possession of marijuana. After an earlier appeal reversed an illegal general sentence, the trial court re…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
RYDER, Judge.

RYDER, Judge.

Barringer appeals the sentences imposed on resentencing, alleging that the court imposed punishment harsher than the original sentences, contrary to the dictates of North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969).

Appellant pled guilty to four counts of burglary, and one count each of sale and possession of marijuana. The court sentenced appellant to consecutive four year terms on each of the burglary counts, and another consecutive four year term for sale and possession. This court reversed in an earlier appeal because the single sentence imposed for sale and possession was an illegal general sentence. Barringer v. State, 362 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978).

On remand, the trial court again imposed consecutive four year sentences on each of the burglary counts, and another consecutive four year sentence for sale of marijuana. The court did not impose a sentence for possession of marijuana, finding that it merged into sale.

We reject the contention that the identical sentences imposed on remand were harsher, and find no merit in the other points raised.

AFFIRMED.

GRIMES, C. J., and OTT, J., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw