JACQUELYN POSTMA, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Parole Ineligibility cases and more on FLexlaw
WHATLEY, Judge.
Jacquelyn Postma appeals her conviction and sentence for second-degree murder. We affirm her conviction without discussion, but we remand for the trial court to strike the language in Postma’s sentence indicating that she is ineligible for parole.
Upon Postma’s motion to correct sentencing error, the trial court entered an order striking the language from the written judgment and sentence that Postma was ineligible for parole. However, it appears from the record before us that such language was never stricken from the written judgment and sentence. We therefore remand this case for the trial court to strike such language from Postma’s sentence if it has not already done so.
Conviction and sentence affirmed; remanded for trial court to strike parole ineligibility language from sentence.
SILBERMAN and KELLY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
Insko v. State, 969 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 2007)…cordingly, courts have held that where a timely motion or objection is raised that the evidence does not support the value required for the degree of the crime charged, a conviction for that specific theft offense cannot stand. See Pickett v. State, 839 So. 2d 860, 862 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (reversing the trial court’s denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal because the State failed to prove that the value of stolen property exceeded $300, and remanding for “entry of conviction and sentence for petit theft…
-
K.W. v. State, 983 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…e, e.g., C.G.H. v. State, 968 So. 2d 94, 95 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (“Evidence was presented concerning the purchase price of the camera, but no other information was given to establish the value of the item at the time of the theft.”); Pickett v. State, 839 So. 2d 860, 862 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (reversing conviction for grand theft “[b]ecause the State only established the purchase price for the items and there was no evidence establishing their value at the time of the theft”). The insufficiency of such evidence of…
-
D.H. v. State, 864 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…and remand for the trial court to reduce the grand theft to petit theft. The State was required to prove that the value of the stolen property at the time of the theft was $300 or more. See § 812.014(2)(c)(l), Fla. Stat. (2002); Pickett v. State, 839 So. 2d 860, 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). “Value may be established by direct testimony of fair market value or through evidence of the original market cost of the property, the manner in which the items were used, the condition and quality of the items, and the per…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence