ROBERT LEE BROWN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 1990-10-26
No. 90-02740
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and LEHAN and PARKER, JJ., concur.
568 So. 2d 1004 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1990) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Topics
Postconviction Relief

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Postconviction Relief cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

In his postconviction relief motion, the appellant contends that the trial court made constitutional sentencing errors when imposing sentence on a three count information. The trial court denied the motion stating that the information at issue (89-15934) charged only one count. Accordingly, the appellant’s allegations would have been without merit. However, the trial court understandably overlooked the appellant’s companion case (89-10526) which contains the additional charges referenced in the appellant’s motion.

We reverse the summary denial of the appellant’s motion and remand to the trial court with directions to the court to determine the sufficiency of the motion, and the allegations contained therein, as applied to circuit court case numbers 89-15934 and 89-10526.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and LEHAN and PARKER, JJ., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Balcor Prop. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ahronovitz, 634 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
    …tions 812.012-037, Florida Statutes (1989). See § 772.11, Fla. Stat. (1989). This injury can only be established if it is shown that the victim has a legally recognized property interest in the items stolen. See Sussex Mutual Insurance Co. v. Gabor, 568 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1990). In the instant case, appellee argues that Balcor stole the means with which appellee could satisfy his claims against the corporation. However, at the time the restaurant [*280] equipment was sold it belonged to the corporation…
  • Gabor v. Gabor & Co., Inc., 599 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
    …nies and were therefore entitled to indemnification. American, Gabor 2, and both Gabors moved for summary judgment against Sussex, which was granted by the trial court, and subsequently affirmed by this court in Sussex Mutual Insurance Co. v. Gabor, 568 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Thereafter, the Gabors moved for summary judgment on their indemnity cross-claim against American and Gabor 2, asserting that their successful defense of the Sussex claim entitled them to indemnification from the companies. The t…
  • Bennett v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 230 So. 3d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
    …s filed, the Bennetts were not required to pay the insurance, even assuming LF Loans and its principal forged the loan documents. Without damages,, summary judgment was due to be granted on the forgery/fraud claim. See Sussex Mut. Ins. Co. v. Gabor, 568 So. 2d 1004, 1005 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (affirming summary judgment because “on this record, it is clear that the plaintiff suffered no damages on its fraud and related claims”). 3. Declaratory Relief Claim The Bennetts’ final claim was for a declaration that th…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw