MERLE J. STOKES
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's denial of a rule 3.800 motion. The court cited two prior Florida Supreme Court decisions as its basis for affirmance.
No, the lower court did not err in denying the motion. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision.
[1] Consecutive life sentences for non-homicide offenses must be resentenced pursuant to sentencing provisions enacted in Chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We affirm. See Franklin v. State, 43 Fla. L. Weekly S556 (Fla. Nov. 8, 2018); State v. Michel, 43 Fla. L. Weekly S298 (Fla. July 12, 2018).”
This quote states the court's decision and the precedent it relied upon.
The appellant, Merle J. Stokes, appealed an order from the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Court of St. Lucie County that denied his rule 3.800 motion. Th…
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 Certification Of Conflict cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Dan L. Vaughn, Judge; L.T. Case No. 561991CF000970A.
Diamond R. Litty, Public Defender, and Usha Maharajh, Assistant Public Defender, Stuart, for appellant.
Ashley Brooke Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and James J. Carney, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING/CLARIFICATION PER CURIAM.
We lift the stay entered on February 3, 2017, and withdraw our opinion on motion for rehearing and clarification, dated February 22, 2017.
We affirm. See Franklin v. State, 43 Fla. L. Weekly S556 (Fla. Nov. 8, 2018); State v. Michel, 43 Fla. L. Weekly S298 (Fla. July 12, 2018).
Affirmed. GROSS, MAY and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
* * *
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. West, 262 So. 3d 818 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)
-
State v. Wesby, 262 So. 3d 818 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)
-
Budry Michel v. State, 259 So. 3d 882 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- State v. Budry Michel, 257 So. 3d 3 (Fla. 2018)
- Franklin v. State, 258 So. 3d 1239 (Fla. 2018)
- Jessy J. Burrows v. State, 219 So. 3d 910 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)
- Mosier v. State, 235 So. 3d 957 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)
- Alfaro v. State, 233 So. 3d 515 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)
- Hart v. State, 246 So. 3d 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
- Rachaun Blount v. State, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D2181 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
- Cuevas v. State, 241 So. 3d 947 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
- Torrence Lawton v. State, 181 So. 3d 452 (Fla. 2015)