ANTHONY ROCCO, PETITIONER,
v.
HARRY K. SINGLETARY, SECRETARY OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ETC., RESPONDENT
PER CURIAM.
In accordance with the state’s proper confession of error, we grant defendant a belated appeal. See Robinson v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1979). As the state concedes, defendant’s sentence is not in accord with the plea agreement; the court imposed consecutive rather than concurrent sentences in case number 93-15639. We, therefore, vacate defendant’s sentence. On remand, the trial court is directed to resentence defendant pursuant to the plea agreement to concurrent sentences on counts one and two in ease number 93-15639. The sentence imposed in that case is to run concurrent with the sentence imposed in case number 92-12917.
Habeas granted; sentence vacated; cause remanded for resentencing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Applied Digit. Solutions, Inc. v. Hark Vasa, 941 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…ey’s office to opposing counsel, who knew he was not entitled to receive it). Finally, the trial court could take into account whether the party obtaining privileged material actually obtained an unfair advantage, see, e.g., 5500 N. Corp. v. Willis, 729 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (quashing order disqualifying counsel, inter alia finding defense counsel did not obtain such unfair advantage as to justify removal, where information which motel’s attorney learned from plaintiffs investigator revealed nothing…
-
Manning v. Cooper, 981 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…at 408. Instead, the court is to exercise its sound judgment. Id. Further, the trial court can take into account whether the party obtaining the privileged material actually obtained an unfair advantage. Id. at 409 (citing 5500 N. Corp. v. Willis, 729 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)) (quashing a trial court order disqualifying counsel where defense counsel did not obtain an unfair advantage as the information counsel learned from a plaintiffs investigator revealed nothing inconsistent with the plaintiffs com…
-
Ward L. Huet and Joan Huet v. Hillary Tromp and Andre Tromp, 912 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…purposes. The court reasoned that if materials are to aid counsel in trying a case, they are work product, but any work product privilege that existed ceases once the materials or testimony are intended for trial use. See 5500 North Corp. v. Willis, 729 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). See also Alamo Rent-A-Car v. Loomis, 432 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Wackenhut Corp. v. Crant-Heisz Ent., Inc., 451 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). The first order denying the Huets’ motion for a protective order rendered Fe…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gissendanner v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1979)
- Robinson v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1979)