MAXEL ROSHOND PEEPLES, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Commission of a Felony cases and more on FLexlaw
[*864] PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Maxel Roshond Peeples, challenges the judgments and sentences imposed upon him after he was found guilty of certain charges contained in a multi-count information. We agree with the appellant’s contention that the trial court erred by imposing a three year minimum mandatory provision in connection with his conviction and sentence under count XVIII of the information. The appellant was not charged with, or found guilty of, having a firearm in his possession at the time he committed the robbery charged in this count of the information. § 775.087(2), Fla.Stat. (1985).
We find no merit in any of the appellant’s other contentions concerning his convictions or sentences. We, accordingly, affirm all of the judgments and sentences, but remand for the purpose of striking the three year mandatory provision imposed upon the appellant in connection with count XVIII of the information.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and LEHAN and FRANK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maxel Roshond Peeples v. State, 575 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…s were imposed without statutory authority. Although one unauthorized mandatory term was included in the original judgment and sentence, that error was corrected on direct appeal and by the actions of the trial court after mandate. Peeples v. State, 562 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Second, a guideline scoresheet error is shown to be harmless in that it did not affect the length of sentence. See Gibbons v. State, 543 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Finally, while Peeples appears to argue that consecutive mini…
-
Kendrick Bernard Hill v. State, 605 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…39.059(7)(c), and must include specific findings of fact and the reasons for the decision. Failure to address even one of the criteria requires reversal and remand. Taylor v. State, 593 So. 2d 1147, 1148 (Fla.. 1st DCA 1992). See also Hope v. State, 562 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Martin v. State, 547 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Franklin v. State, 473 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Flowers v. State, 546 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). The order should address each criterion in separately numbered par…