EUGENIO SPITALIERI, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the convictions and sentences but remanded for correction of sentencing documents regarding time served credits and certain costs/fines.
The defendant was convicted of manslaughter with a firearm and sentenced. The State conceded error regarding the calculation of time served credits an…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Discretionary Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm Eugenio Spitalieri’s convictions of two counts of manslaughter with a firearm and the consecutive fifteen-year sentences imposed as a consequence. See Contreras-Mayahua v. State, 40 So.3d 861 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).
We accept the State’s concession of error regarding Spitalieri’s motion to correct his sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b). The State concedes that Spitalieri is entitled to 586 days of credit for time served instead of the 583 days that the court awarded. The State further concedes that the $1 First Step and $30 drug testing costs must be stricken as they are discretionary costs and were not orally pronounced. See State v. Williams, 712 So.2d 762 (Fla.1998). For the same reason, the $250 fine imposed under section 775.083(1), Florida Statutes (2010), shall be stricken. See Dadds v. State, 946 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).1 On remand, Spitalieri’s sentencing documents shall be corrected. No resentencing is necessary.
Convictions AFFIRMED; REMANDED for Correction of Sentence.
ORFINGER, C.J., GRIFFIN and COHEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Blalock v. State, 98 So. 3d 118 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…no search was performed. That said, we disagree with Appellant’s contention that, in determining Sella’s success rate, the trial court should only consider the number of verified alerts and the total number of alerts, as was done in Wiggs v. State, 72 So. 3d 154 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). The Florida Supreme Court recognized in Harris that “[a]n alert to a residual odor is different from a false alert,” and in our view, an alert to a residual odor that the dog was trained to detect should not count either “for” or…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Chuck Junior Williams, 712 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 1998)
- Grubb v. State, 922 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Dadds v. State, 946 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Contreras-Mayahua v. State, 40 So. 3d 861 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Velez-Pizzini v. State, 58 So. 3d 278 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)