CURTIS J. HUFF, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 1994-07-22
No. 93-2182
DAUKSCH and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
639 So. 2d 208 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1994) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.


Holding

The court held that the defendant is entitled to credit for time served on all three counts which are to run concurrently, and affirmed the adjudication and sentence as an habitual violent offender.


Facts & Procedural History

The defendant entered a no contest plea to three counts. He argued that the record did not contain a sufficient factual basis for the plea and that he…

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.


Opinion of the Court
W. SHARP, Judge.

W. SHARP, Judge.

We have examined the record in the above case and have found no reversible error apparent on its face. See State v. Causey, 503 So. 2d 321 (Fla.1987). The defendant in this case, Curtis Huff, entered a no contest plea to three counts, and his sentence conforms to the plea bargain and is otherwise legal.

This case is not (as Huff claims) like Koenig v. State, 597 So. 2d 256 (Fla.1992). Here, three transcripts included in the record on appeal rebut his argument that the record does not contain a sufficient factual basis to stipulate to the facts underlying the plea.

However, we agree with Huff that he is entitled to credit for time served on all three counts which are to run concurrently. As we stated in Bell v. State, 573 So. 2d 10, 11 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), “[wjhen a defendant receives concurrent sentences, the credit must be applied to each of the concurrent sentences. See Daniels v. State, 491 So. 2d 543 (Fla.1986).”

Accordingly, we affirm Huffs adjudication and sentence as an habitual violent offender. We remand for the sole purpose of modifying the sentences to reflect credit for time served on all three counts. Huff need not be present.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED for proper award of credit.

DAUKSCH and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Timmer v. State, 824 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
    …PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.702(d); Huff v. State, 639 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Jackson v. State, 449 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); SHARP, W., HARRIS and PLEUS, JJ, concur.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw