Stark v. State
| Decision Date | 22 February 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-04175,93-04175 |
| Citation | 650 So.2d 697 |
| Parties | 20 Fla. L. Weekly D518 Johnathan STARK, a/k/a Jeffery Ray Cohoon, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Julia Diaz, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Scott A. Browne, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
The appellant, Johnathan Stark, a/k/a Jeffery Ray Cohoon, challenges the sentences imposed upon him in two cases after he pled no contest and was found guilty of the charges contained therein. We find that the trial court erred in sentencing the appellant and, accordingly, reverse and remand for resentencing.
In case number 93-08688, the appellant pled no contest, was adjudicated guilty, and the written sentencing order provided as follows: armed burglary of a dwelling, ten years in prison followed by five years probation; armed burglary of a conveyance, ten years in prison followed by five years probation; and possession of burglary tools, five years in prison. Those sentences were to run concurrently with each other and concurrently with counts II, III, and IV of case number 93-10466 and concurrently with the probation portion of count I in case number 93-10466. In case number 93-10466, the appellant pled no contest, was adjudicated guilty and the written sentencing order provided as follows: burglary of a dwelling (count I), ten years in prison followed by five years probation; and for the three grand theft counts (counts II, III, and IV), five years probation consecutive to the prison sentence. Those sentences were to run concurrently with the sentences imposed in case number 93-08688. The appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.
The appellant first challenges the written sentencing order in case number 93-08688 on the grounds that it did not comport with the trial court's oral pronouncement at sentencing. We agree since it appears that the trial court orally pronounced at sentencing that the sentences in both cases were to run concurrently, however, the written sentencing order in case number 93-08688 provides that those sentences were to run concurrently with only a portion of the sentences imposed in case number 93-10466. The case must, therefore, be remanded to conform the written sentences to the trial court's oral pronouncement. See Williams v. State, 591 So.2d 329 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).
The appellant next challenges probation conditions (4) and (7) from his order of probation. We first consider probation condition (4), concerning the firearm possession prohibition. We agree that the portion of probation condition (4), which implies that the defendant may possess a firearm with his probation officer's permission, must be stricken because, as a convicted felon, the defendant may not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. State, 96-02641
...652 So.2d 912 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Emond v. State, 652 So.2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), quashed, 668 So.2d 599 (Fla.1996); Stark v. State, 650 So.2d 697 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).2 See Weber v. State, 691 So.2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Levely v. State, 685 So.2d 847 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Cooper v. State, 6......
-
Jones v. State, 95-00449
...the excessive use of intoxicants as a special condition that the trial court failed to announce at sentencing. Stark v. State, 650 So.2d 697 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). The remainder of condition 5 is valid as a more precise definition of a general prohibition that needs no oral pronouncement. Evan......
-
Hall v. State, 94-02769
...2d DCA 1995). The portion of probation condition seven which prohibits the use of intoxicants to excess is stricken. See Stark v. State, 650 So.2d 697 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). In all other aspects, we FRANK, A.C.J., and FULMER, J., concur. ...
-
Hall v. State, 93-03519
...we affirm that portion of condition four that prohibits appellant from possessing, carrying or owning any firearms. See Stark v. State, 650 So.2d 697 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Hart v. State, 651 So.2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Fitts v. State, 649 So.2d 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Also following the dic......