From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Martinez v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jul 30, 1982
417 So. 2d 770 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

Opinion

No. 81-610.

July 30, 1982.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County, B.J. Driver, J.

Dorothy M. Walker of Walker Vetrick, Belle Glade, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert J. Landry, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.


Finding no error in the trial court's refusal to dismiss the informations against appellant and there being no proper showing of prejudice to appellant due to the trial court's failure to fully comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(c)(i), we affirm the judgments of guilt against appellant, albeit without prejudice to his filing a Rule 3.850 motion challenging the voluntariness of his plea.

A showing of prejudice is mandated by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(i).

However, the single sentence imposed on the two counts against appellant is an illegal general sentence and must be corrected. Dorfman v. State, 351 So.2d 954 (Fla. 1977); Darden v. State, 306 So.2d 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). In addition, the mandatory three-year minimum sentence for trafficking in cannabis required by Section 893.135(1)(a)1., Florida Statutes (1979) should be included in the sentence. Accordingly, the sentence is vacated and the cause remanded for resentencing. Appellant need not be present at resentencing.

OTT, C.J., and HOBSON and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Martinez v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jul 30, 1982
417 So. 2d 770 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)
Case details for

Martinez v. State

Case Details

Full title:RAYMOND MARTINEZ, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Jul 30, 1982

Citations

417 So. 2d 770 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

Citing Cases

State v. Samudio

Because the trial court refused to impose the appropriate sentences and fines, we must reverse and remand for…

Caristi v. State

The state argues persuasively that there must be a limit on the defendant's right to further review, either…