DANIEL BRYAN BOWLING, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
The court held that a verbally stipulated concurrent sentence must be corrected even if not reflected in the written order.
Defendant moved to correct sentences to run concurrently, alleging a stipulation that the robbery sentence would run concurrently with a theft sentenc…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Correction Of Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Chief Judge.
The defendant, Daniel Bryan Bowling, filed a 3.850 motion below to correct his sentences in two cases (No. 80-3276 for grand theft and No. 80-3746 for robbery) so that they run concurrently. The basis asserted in his motion for relief is that it was “stipulated” that the robbery sentence of fifteen years was to run concurrently with the previously imposed theft sentence of four years.
The trial court denied the motion on the basis that “Florida Statutes 921.16 ... provided that sentences for offenses not charged in the same indictment, information or affidavit shall be served consecutively unless the Court (otherwise) directs.” The trial court’s order correctly states the law, but did not address the pertinent allegation that the fifteen-year sentence was “stipulated” to run concurrently, even though the written sentence did not reflect that directive.
The transcript of the sentencing hearing supports the movant/appellant. The sentencing judge verbally stated that the robbery sentence was to run concurrently with the previous grand theft sentence. The state concedes error, citing Mays v. State, 349 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for correction of the sentence in Case No. 80-3746 to show that it shall run concurrently with the sentence in Case No. 80-3276.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DAUKSCH and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. State, 499 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…1st DCA 1981). We disagree. Since the lack of prejudice is clearly apparent on the record, and a finding of its absence is implicit in the trial court’s ruling, we hold that the state has met its burden of proof in this context. See Borges v. State, 459 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the conviction. We turn next to the guidelines issue. At a post-trial hearing, the trial court determined appellant to be a habitual felony offender. At the sentencing hearing subsequently he…
-
Walker v. State, 484 So. 2d 1322 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…of the undisclosed evidence in question. This being so, and given the overwhelming proof of guilt in this cause, the trial court properly denied the defense motion for a mistrial. See Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971); Borges v. State, 459 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Second, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying a motion for mistrial made after a police detective testified that the defendant did not wish to give a stenographic statement to the police, but instead gave…
-
T.R.C. v. State, 841 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Borges v. State, 459 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mays v. State, 349 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)