CEASAR LIZANA, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Correction Of Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant filed a motion for correction of his sentences for possession of burglary tools and burglary of a dwelling, claiming that they were intended to be served concurrently with sentences he received in several Dade County convictions. He claims that this was a condition of his plea. The state filed a response both in the trial court and on appeal acknowledging that the sentencing was to be concurrent but claiming that it is apparent from the sentencing orders that they were concurrent with the Dade County convictions. Based on this response, the trial court denied the motion.
We have carefully reviewed the judgments of sentence and the disposition order, and while they show that the sentences on the two counts are to be concurrent with each other, nowhere is it designated that they are to be concurrent with the Dade County sentences.
Since the state concedes that they were to be concurrent, we reverse and remand for correction of appellant’s sentences to show that they are to be served concurrently with his sentences from Dade County.
STONE, WARNER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Demps v. State, 965 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…1 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (holding that defendant was improperly convicted of two counts of armed robbery when he took property of convenience store and of store employee, where taking was “during one continuous episode”); Anderson v. State, 639 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Morgan v. State, 407 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). The state’s response to our order to show cause does not clear up the record as to whether these two counts were barred by double jeopardy and whether this constituted ineffe…
-
Atwell v. State, 886 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…1981). Caselaw dictates that Atwell could not be found guilty of taking money or other property from the person or custody of Kim when the money was removed from the cash register by Wendy and no property was taken from Kim. See Anderson v. State, 639 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Because the evidence did not support the existence of the robbery element of taking money or property from Kim’s person or from her custody, the motion for judgment of acquittal as to this single count should have been granted.…