WILLIE KNIGHT, APPELLANT,

v.

THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Llerena v. State, 953 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
  …nally ordered that the sentence be coterminous with the other sentences imposed. Concurrent sentences do not necessarily begin at the same time, and unless they are ordered to be coterminous, they will expire on different dates. See Knight v. State, 832 So. 2d 172, 172 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)(affirming denial of motion for post-conviction relief as “plea colloquy contains no indication that the sentence was to be coterminous with any other sentence”). We, therefore, affirm the trial court’s order to the extent th…
• Danurel Daffin v. State, 31 So. 3d 867 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
  …3 (Fla.2009). But “[(Concurrent sentences do not necessarily begin at the same time, and unless they are ordered to be coterminous, they will expire on different dates.” Llerena v. State, 953 So. 2d 31, 33 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (citing Knight v. State, 832 So. 2d 172, 172 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)). In the present case, the concurrent sentences for the new law violations began later than the sentence pronounced upon revocation of probation to which they were all concurrent; and the petit theft sentence expired before a…
• Sansbury v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 204 So. 3d 985 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)
  …is consistent both with the express language of rule 1.500(c) and with Florida’s well established preference for lawsuits to be determined bn the merits rather than by default judgment. Id. at 614-15. See also Drake v. Pub. Health Tr. of Dade Cty., 832 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (ruling that, based on the fact that the appellant filed a response to the complaint prior to the hearing on the plaintiffs motion for default, both the default against the appellant and the default final judgment were improvident…