Pattmon v. State, 80-931
| Decision Date | 23 October 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-931,80-931 |
| Citation | 404 So.2d 1177 |
| Parties | Lenwood PATTMON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jerry Hill, Public Defender, Bartow, and Robert F. Moeller, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Michael J. Kotler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Appellant was convicted of a charge of escape and sentenced to 15 years in prison. He was at that time on parole from a sentence on another crime. The new 15-year sentence specified that it was "to commence after any parole violation sentence that might be imposed."
The quoted language was surplusage. Unless the court specifically directed otherwise, the new sentence would as a matter of law be consecutive to any other sentence for an offense that was the subject of a separate indictment, information, or affidavit. § 921.16, Fla.Stat.
As constituted, the new sentence is impermissibly uncertain as to commencement. Keel v. State, 321 So.2d 86 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). We therefore cure the deficiency by striking the surplusage. Teffeteller v. State, 396 So.2d 1171 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
The judgment of conviction and the sentence, as amended, are AFFIRMED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tremaine v. State, 95-02791
...his sentence for aggravated battery to run consecutive to any sentence to be imposed in a case pending in Ohio. See Pattmon v. State, 404 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Keel v. State, 321 So.2d 86 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Hummell v. State, 693 So.2d 113 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). We, therefore, strike......