JAIME MIRELEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
JAIME MIRELEZ, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
804 So. 2d 622
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2002)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the conviction but remand to the trial court to correct an inconsistency between the orally pronounced sentence and the written sentence as to Count XIV. The trial court orally pronounced a five year sentence while the written sentence imposed a prison term of 15 years for this count. The error is clear and its correction does not change the aggregate sentence appellant received.
Therefore, the appellant’s conviction is affirmed and the matter is remanded for correction of the sentence as to Count XIV.
AFFIRMED; REMANDED FOR CORRECTION OF SENTENCE.
PETERSON, GRIFFIN and PLEUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ileana Morales v. Gilda Rosenberg, 919 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…s court (Appeal I), Rosenberg challenged the referral to the special master, and we reversed based upon the well-established principle that a trial court may not refer a matter to a special master absent consent of the parties. Rosenberg v. Morales, 804 So. 2d 622, 623-24 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). We also awarded appellate fees and costs to Rosenberg pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410 on the ground that Morales forced Rosenberg to maintain a clearly meritless and unnecessary appeal. See Fla. R.Ap…
-
Ileana Morales v. Gilda Rosenberg, 879 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…ms motion for sanctions under section 57.105 but reversed the final judgment, concluding that the trial court had erred as a matter of law when it referred the valuation matter to the special master without Rosenberg’s consent. Rosenberg v. Morales, 804 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)(Case No. 00-2021). By separate order the district court granted Rosenberg’s motion for fees and costs and remanded to the trial court to fix the amount [Order I, February 6, 2002], After the mandate issued, Morales sought to main…
-
Lisette Arellano Bisson v. Arellano, 844 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…this court’s holding in Arellano v. Bisson, 761 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). However, we reverse the fee award ordering plaintiffs’ attorney to pay fees as this attorney did not file the initial complaint in this action. See Rosenberg v. Morales, 804 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Inc. v. Party Prods., II, Inc., 738 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). It is undisputed that this case is controlled by the 1995 version of section 57.105, that stated: The court shall award a reasonable attorney’s fee to be paid t…