From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Francisco-Augustin v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Jun 25, 1997
695 So. 2d 1299 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

Summary

reversing on concession of error a sentence for count 2 in which a portion of the sentence ran consecutively to count 1 and the remainder ran concurrently with count 1, relying on Rozmestor v. State , 381 So.2d 324 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)

Summary of this case from Billups v. State

Opinion

Case No. 96-2534

Opinion filed June 25, 1997

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County; John E. Fennelly, Judge; L.T. Case No. 95-857-CFA.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Ian Seldin, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Denise S. Calegan, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.


Appellant was sentenced on his plea of no contest to two counts of DUI manslaughter, leaving the scene of an accident involving death, and DUI with serious bodily injury. He argues that it was error for a portion of his 15-year prison sentence on the second count of DUI manslaughter to run consecutively to count I, while the remainder ran concurrently. We reverse.

The oral pronouncement was that 9.2 years of the 15 years would be consecutive; however, the written sentence says 8.86 years. Because of our reversal, this discrepancy becomes moot.

The state concedes and we agree that under the authority ofRozmestor v. State, 381 So.2d 324 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), such a sentence is erroneous. The parties dispute, however, whether or not the trial court may impose anything other than a concurrent sentence on remand. We decline to address this issue in advance of the trial court's resentencing, as it would be premature.

GUNTHER, C.J., and FARMER, J., concur.


Summaries of

Francisco-Augustin v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Jun 25, 1997
695 So. 2d 1299 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

reversing on concession of error a sentence for count 2 in which a portion of the sentence ran consecutively to count 1 and the remainder ran concurrently with count 1, relying on Rozmestor v. State , 381 So.2d 324 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)

Summary of this case from Billups v. State

In Francisco-Augustin v. State, 695 So.2d 1299 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), we remanded for resentencing because the defendant's guidelines scoresheet showed an erroneous maximum total of 286 months (23.8 years), when the maximum should have been 259.2 months (21.6 years).

Summary of this case from Francisco-Augustin v. State
Case details for

Francisco-Augustin v. State

Case Details

Full title:MIGUEL FRANCISCO-AUGUSTIN, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Jun 25, 1997

Citations

695 So. 2d 1299 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

Citing Cases

Smith v. State

Imposing a sentence that is partly concurrent and partly consecutive to another sentence violates a…