From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fox v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Oct 9, 2002
827 So. 2d 377 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

Summary

holding that DOC correctly structured a defendant's 1976 and 1992 sentences to run consecutively where they were not charged in the same instrument and the court did not order them to be served concurrently

Summary of this case from Whipple v. Dept. of Corrections

Opinion

Case No. 3D01-2589

Opinion filed October 9, 2002.

An appeal under Fla.R.App.P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Dade County, Dennis J. Murphy, Judge. Lower Tribunal No. 92-35818.

Norman Oliver Fox, in proper person. Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Barbara A. Zappi, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before JORGENSON, COPE and GODERICH, JJ.


Norman Oliver Fox appeals an order denying his motion to clarify his sentence. We affirm.

According to the motion filed by defendant-appellant Fox, he was convicted of second degree murder in circuit court case number 76-1112. He was incarcerated and released on parole for life. He was subsequently convicted in circuit court case number 92-35818 of trafficking in cocaine and was sentenced to seventeen years with a mandatory minimum term of fifteen years. His parole in the 1976 case was revoked.

Defendant states that the Department of Corrections has structured his sentences so that the sentence in the 1992 case runs consecutive to the sentence in the 1976 case. He argues that the sentences should be concurrent.

The trial court correctly denied relief. "Sentences of imprisonment for offenses not charged in the same indictment, information, or affidavit shall be served consecutively unless the court directs that two or more of the sentences be served concurrently." § 921.16(1), Fla. Stat. (1991). At sentencing on the 1992 case, the trial court did not order that the sentences be served concurrently. It follows that they must be served consecutively. See Benyard v. Wainwright, 322 So.2d 473 (Fla. 1975).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Fox v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Oct 9, 2002
827 So. 2d 377 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

holding that DOC correctly structured a defendant's 1976 and 1992 sentences to run consecutively where they were not charged in the same instrument and the court did not order them to be served concurrently

Summary of this case from Whipple v. Dept. of Corrections

holding that DOC correctly structured a defendant's 1976 and 1992 sentences to run consecutively where they were not charged in the same instrument and the court did not order them to be served concurrently

Summary of this case from Whipple v. D.O.C.
Case details for

Fox v. State

Case Details

Full title:NORMAN OLIVER FOX, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Oct 9, 2002

Citations

827 So. 2d 377 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

Citing Cases

Willis v. State

Affirmed. See Eldridge v. Moore, 760 So.2d 888 (Fla.2000); Benyard v. Wainwright, 322 So.2d 473 (Fla.1975);…

Williams v. State

Affirmed. See Benyard v. Wainwright, 322 So.2d 473 (Fla.1975); Fox v. State, 827 So.2d 377 (Fla. 3d DCA…