Summary
In Wilson v. State, 918 So.2d 446 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), the defendant contended that there was a violation of rule 3.700 in regard to his sentence for a probation violation and we affirmed, citing Scott.
Summary of this case from Murphy v. StateOpinion
No. 4D04-4199.
January 25, 2006.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Stanton S. Kaplan, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 03-17579 CF10A, 04-14844 CF10A, 04-184 CF10A 04-14530 CF10A.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Frederick Arthur Mullins, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Georgina Jimenez-Orosa, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Appellant appeals four convictions and sentences entered on the same day in different cases. As to the convictions in case nos. 04-14844, 04-184, and 04-14530, the public defender has filed a brief in conformance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). We have made our own review of the record and find no meritorious issues. We affirm.
As to the sentence in case no. 03-17579, on a probation violation, the public defender has filed a brief on the merits, contending that it was error for a successor judge to sentence Appellant without a showing of necessity required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.700(c)(1). We affirm based on Scott v. State, 909 So.2d 364 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).
GUNTHER, STONE and WARNER, JJ., concur.