KEITH BERNARD LEE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1998-12-02
No. 97-2309
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and SHEVIN and SORONDO, JJ.
777 So. 2d 418 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1998) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm defendant’s convictions. See Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 110 S.Ct. 2793, 111 L.Ed.2d 148 (1990); United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 94 S.Ct. 988, 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974); State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986). Additionally, we reject the state’s contention that the defendant’s aggravated battery judgment of conviction is incorrect. See Dozier v. State, 677 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).

However, we remand the cause to the trial court to clarify defendant’s sentence because the court’s oral pronouncements are unclear as to whether it intended to sentence defendant as an habitual offender on count I only, or on all counts. See Hampton v. State, 711 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).

Convictions affirmed; cause remanded to clarify sentence.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Nelson v. State, 805 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
    …see reoffender. The sentencing transcripts do not clearly reflect the court’s intent. We remand this cause to the trial court for clarification as to whether the court intended to sentence defendant as a prison releasee reoffender. See Lee v. State, 777 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). Affirmed, in part; cause remanded for clarification.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw