RAYMOND A. MATTHEWS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
RAYMOND A. MATTHEWS, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
408 So. 2d 781
Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1982)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed, but the case is remanded for resentencing. The sentence incorrectly failed to provide the period of credit time to be allowed appellant as required by section 921.-161(1), Florida Statutes (1979). Shemwell v. State, 391 So. 2d 218 (Fla.2d DCA 1980). Appellant need not be present at resentencing.
HOBSON, A.C.J., and BOARDMAN and OTT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pollock v. Fla. Dep't OF Hwy. Patrol, 882 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 2004)…affirming final judgment against the City for its failure to follow the protocols provided for in the traffic control devices manual which the City had adopted as the standard for signalization and street markings); State Dep’t of Transp. v. Cooper, 408 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (same). Based on the foregoing, we determine that FHP had no special duty either to maintain the road on which this horrible accident occurred, or to dispatch officers in response to the emergency call. Importantly, we note that…
-
The City OF Jacksonville v. DeRAY, 418 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…ons. Cf. Payne v. Palm Beach County, 395 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (duty to warn met with placement of signs meeting more than minimal requirements of “State Manual for Traffic Control Devices’’); State, Department of Transportation v. Cooper, 408 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (accident caused by absence of stop ahead sign dictated by “Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways” adopted by DOT). For example, under “General Provisions” in the Manual it is provided that the word “…
-
Scott v. State, 439 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…cessity of the presence of defendant. Such instances usually involve mechanical recalculations of credit time. See Williamson v. United States, 265 F. 2d 236 (5th Cir.1959); Bruner v. State, 398 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) and Matthews v. State, 408 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). We also note that under federal practice a defendant’s presence is not required at a reduction of his sentence under Fed.R.Crim.P. 35. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 43(c)(4). Since it would be dicta, we decline to set forth our views as to…
Authorities Cited
- Shemwell v. State, 391 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)