From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Peeples v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jun 27, 1990
562 So. 2d 863 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

Opinion

Nos. 87-02638, 89-02297.

June 27, 1990.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County; E. Randolph Bentley, Judge.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Deborah K. Brueckheimer, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert J. Landry, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.


The appellant, Maxel Roshond Peeples, challenges the judgments and sentences imposed upon him after he was found guilty of certain charges contained in a multi-count information. We agree with the appellant's contention that the trial court erred by imposing a three year minimum mandatory provision in connection with his conviction and sentence under count XVIII of the information. The appellant was not charged with, or found guilty of, having a firearm in his possession at the time he committed the robbery charged in this count of the information. § 775.087(2), Fla. Stat. (1985).

We find no merit in any of the appellant's other contentions concerning his convictions or sentences. We, accordingly, affirm all of the judgments and sentences, but remand for the purpose of striking the three year mandatory provision imposed upon the appellant in connection with count XVIII of the information.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and LEHAN and FRANK, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Peeples v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jun 27, 1990
562 So. 2d 863 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)
Case details for

Peeples v. State

Case Details

Full title:MAXEL ROSHOND PEEPLES, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Jun 27, 1990

Citations

562 So. 2d 863 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

Citing Cases

Peeples v. State

Although one unauthorized mandatory term was included in the original judgment and sentence, that error was…