From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hoffman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Nov 22, 2000
776 So. 2d 286 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

Opinion

No. 3D99-2912.

Opinion filed November 22, 2000.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(i) from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Wayne M. Miller, Judge, Lower Tribunal No. 93-239.

Affirmed.

Eric M. Hoffman, in proper person.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Jan E. Vair, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before COPE, GODERICH, and SHEVIN, JJ.


See Christopher v. State, 489 So.2d 22 (Fla. 1986); Hoffman v. State, 736 So.2d 1196 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).

On Denial of Rehearing and Certification

The sentence is consistent with the plea agreement and Hoffman v. State, 700 So.2d 765 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). The court is allowed to use a corrected scoresheet on resentencing. Roberts v. State, 644 So.2d 81 (Fla. 1994). A guidelines sentence can include a split sentence like that imposed here. Wick v. State, 651 So.2d 765, 766 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Consecutive sentences on the two counts are permissible, § 921.16, Fla. Stat. (1991), and appellant acknowledged in the written plea agreement that sixty years is the total legal maximum for the two counts. The incarceration is within the guidelines and the split sentence is within the legal maximum.

Rehearing and certification denied; clarification granted.


Summaries of

Hoffman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Nov 22, 2000
776 So. 2d 286 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)
Case details for

Hoffman v. State

Case Details

Full title:ERIC M. HOFFMAN, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Nov 22, 2000

Citations

776 So. 2d 286 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

Citing Cases

Gilbert v. State

A consecutive probationary period is permissible up to the legal maximum. Since the trial court is allowed to…