ROBERT L. SHIRMON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted for the offenses of burglary and attempted grand larceny. The convictions are affirmed. However, the judgment and sentence form, although adjudicating appellant guilty of each offense, fails to reflect a pronouncement of sentence for the offense of attempted grand larceny. This is improper. Helton v. State, 106 So. 2d 79 (Fla.1958); Bateh v. State, 101 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1958), cert. disch. 110 So. 2d 7 (Fla.1959); Slay v. State, 347 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1977). Accordingly, the judgment and sentence are reversed and the cause remanded for the imposition of a proper sentence.
McCORD, C. J., and MILLS and BOYER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Burkett v. Don L. Parker and wife, 410 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…red in a motor vehicle accident for “permanent injury,” other than “scarring or disfigurement.” We reverse. [*948] Summary judgment procedure is not a trial by affidavit or deposition, and may not be used as a substitute for trial. Manucy v. Manucy, 362 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Navison v. Winn and Lovett Tampa, Inc., 92 So. 2d 531 (Fla.1957); Jones v. Stoutenburgh, 91 So. 2d 299 (Fla.1957). Where the evidence before the trial court is susceptible of more than one inference, one of which will support th…
-
State v. Peters, 534 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…55 (Fla.1985); Vasques v. Lopez, 509 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); White v. Whitworth, 509 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Ward v. Young, 504 So. 2d 528 (Fla.2d DCA 1987); Anderson v. Walthal, 468 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Manucy v. Manucy, 362 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Pit bulls have even been considered weapons in first-degree assaults. See State v. Livingston, 420 N.W. 2d 223 (Minn.Ct.App.1988). For a more complete and graphic description of the harm wrought by pit bulls see Garcia v. Villag…
-
O'Quinn v. Seibels, 447 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…e trial court granted Seibel’s motion for summary judgment. [*371] In considering a motion for summary judgment, it is axiomatic that “every reasonable inference must be drawn in favor of the party against whom the motion is made.” Manucy v. Manucy, 362 So. 2d 478, 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). “Where the evidence before the trial court is susceptible of more than one inference, one of which will support the plaintiffs view of the facts, a summary judgment for the defendant should not be entered.” Burkett v. Parke…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Mussa C. Bateh, 110 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 1959)
- Mussa C. Bateh v. State, 101 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- Helton v. State, 106 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 1958)
- Slay v. State, 347 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)