From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Philips v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Apr 17, 1991
578 So. 2d 40 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

Opinion

Nos. 90-0954, 90-0999.

April 17, 1991.

Consolidated appeals from the Circuit Court for Broward County; Richard D. Eade, Judge.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Jill Hanekamp, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Carol Cobourn Asbury, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.


We affirm appellant's conviction but remand with directions that appellant's written sentence be corrected to conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement that his sentence be concurrent with an earlier sentence. We reject appellant's claim relating to improper police conduct because it was not properly raised in the trial court. We also reject appellant's claim that the minimum mandatory sentencing provisions of the law prohibiting the purchase of drugs near a school constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. See State v. Burch, 545 So.2d 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).

ANSTEAD and DELL, JJ., and JAMES H. WALDEN, Senior Judge, concur.


Summaries of

Philips v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Apr 17, 1991
578 So. 2d 40 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)
Case details for

Philips v. State

Case Details

Full title:LARRY PHILIPS, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Apr 17, 1991

Citations

578 So. 2d 40 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

Citing Cases

Turner v. State

A hearing is necessary because the trial court's order does not conform with its oral statement. See Philips…

Merrick v. State

We affirm defendant's conviction but remand with instructions to the trial court to conform the written…