JESSIE DANIELS, 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 sentences are presumed concurrent unless otherwise specified by the trial court. The judgment must also clearly state the amount of restitution ordered.
The defendant was convicted on 24 counts of forgery and uttering forged instruments and sentenced to 30 months. The written judgment did not explicitl…
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 Concurrent Sentences cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant contends that the written judgment and sentences for forgery and uttering forged instruments fail to reflect the trial court’s intention that the sentences on all twenty-four counts of the information run concurrently and do not indicate the amount of restitution he was ordered to pay. At the sentencing hearing the trial judge stated, “[Wjith respect to all counts, place the defendant in the Department of Corrections for a period of 30 months.... Request a restitution order be prepared for restitution to Capital City Second National Bank, $976.77.”
The sentencing sheets for counts 19-24 do not reflect that the sentences are to run concurrent with the sentences for counts 1-18. Section 921.16(1), Florida Statutes (1985), provides that, when a defendant is convicted of two or more offenses charged in the same information, he “shall serve the sentences of imprisonment concurrently unless the court directs that two or more of the sentences be served consecutively.” Since the judgment does not state otherwise, defendant’s sentences on the twenty-four counts of this information are, by law, to be served concurrently.
We remand, however, for the purpose of having the judgment corrected to set forth the amount of restitution to be paid. At the same time, the judgment should make clear that the sentences are to run concurrently.
REMANDED.
THOMPSON, ZEHMER and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stevenson v. State, 659 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…rved consecutively. Since appellant’s offenses were charged in the same information, and since the trial [*433] court did not direct that appellant’s sentences be served consecutively, they are to be served concurrently. See also, Daniels v. State, 506 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (where judgment does not state otherwise, defendant’s sentences on 24 counts are by law to be served concurrently). We find no merit in the other point raised on appeal. AFFIRMED. PETERSON, C.J., and GOSHORN and THOMPSON, J…