ROBIN ZEIGLER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 2002-04-16
No. 1D01-343
BOOTH, MINER, and KAHN, JJ., concur.
813 So. 2d 286 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2002)


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

In this criminal case, appellant raises two points. On the first point, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in handling the purported discovery violation. See, e.g., Hayden v. State, 760 So. 2d 1031, 1033 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (‘When the trial court learns of a possible discovery violation, the court must determine: 1) whether the violation was inadvertent or willful, 2) whether the violation was trivial or substantial, and 3) what effect the violation had on the defendant’s ability to properly prepare for trial.... After considering these factors, the court has the discretion to fashion an appropriate remedy.”). As the State properly concedes on the second point, however, the trial court has mistakenly sentenced appellant, on Count II, for a first degree felony instead of a second degree felony. Accordingly, we AFFIRM appellant’s convictions, but VACATE his sentence on Count II and REMAND for resentencing.

BOOTH, MINER, and KAHN, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw