STEPHEN L. SOLOMON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
STEPHEN L. SOLOMON, APPELLANT,
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
693 So. 2d 719
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1997)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Based on our review of the appellant’s motion to clarify sentence [Fla.R.Crim.P.3.800], the State’s response to our order to show cause, and the record on appeal, the trial court’s order denying the motion to correct sentence is reversed, and the case is remanded with directions that the trial court enter a corrected sentencing order in case 92-19938, indicating that the sentence is to run concurrently with the sentences on appellant’s other cases [93-17331, 93-29254, 93-35428, 93-35599, 93-37818], so as to comply with its oral ruling that the sentences in all of appellant’s eases are to run concurrently with each other. We find no merit to the remaining issue.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
L.K. v. State, 729 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…eflect that the statutory maximum term for simple battery is one year and to allow appellant credit for time served in secure detention prior to her adjudication on this offense. See E.R. v. State, 584 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Gainer v. State, 693 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); In Interest of B.A., 546 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). [*1012] Accordingly, we reverse and remand for correction of the disposition order to limit the commitment term to one year with credit for time served in secure detention…
-
Thompson v. State, 744 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…spent in the juvenile detention center. Accordingly, the order denying Thompson’s motion seeking credit for time served is reversed with directions to the trial court to credit the 21 days spent in the juvenile detention center. See Gainer v. State, 693 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1997). Reversed and remanded with directions.…
-
State v. D.S., 760 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…in jail,” a fíne, or both.1 We find, however, that by, in effect, crediting the juvenile for “time served” in detention,2 the court satisfied the alleged jail time requirement. See L.K v. State, 729 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Gainer v. State, 693 So. 2d 719, 720 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); E.R. v. State, 584 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). This holding makes it unnecessary3 for us to reach the varied and difficult issues surrounding the effect of the sentencing aspect of the ordinance provision on juvenile case…