From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Plant v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Aug 20, 1976
336 So. 2d 437 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)

Opinion

No. BB-300.

August 20, 1976.

Appeal from the Escambia County Circuit Court, Ernest E. Mason, J.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Jeanne Dawes Schwartz, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.


We here review a judgment and sentence by which appellant was adjudicated guilty upon his plea of nolo contendere, expressly reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress, and the imposition of a sentence of one year and one day. Our examination of the record reveals that there was sufficient evidence which was apparently believed by the trial judge to sustain his denial of appellant's motion to suppress based upon the police officers' testimony that appellant consented to the search giving rise to the evidence sought to be suppressed. However the State candidly agrees that the sentence imposed for a misdemeanor of the first degree exceeds that permitted by law. (See F.S. 893.13(1)(f) and F.S. 775.082(4)(a)). Accordingly, we remand for the purpose of the trial judge correcting the sentence. It shall not be necessary for the appellant to be present at the time the sentence is corrected.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

BOYER, C.J., and RAWLS and McCORD, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Plant v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Aug 20, 1976
336 So. 2d 437 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)
Case details for

Plant v. State

Case Details

Full title:JOHN PETER PLANT, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Aug 20, 1976

Citations

336 So. 2d 437 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)

Citing Cases

Mena v. State

We cannot agree with this analysis inasmuch as the record indicates that the aforesaid consent was freely and…