History
  • No items yet
midpage
Blands v. State
546 So. 2d 808
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
1989
Check Treatment
PER CURIAM.

The trial court did not err when it increased appellant’s sentence to the next higher cell as provided by the sentencing guidelines. See Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)14. We also find no conflict with the sentence imposed by the trial court and the holding in State v. Van Kooten, 522 So.2d 830 (Fla.1988).

We reverse the trial court’s assessment of costs against appellant. See Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 947 (Fla.1984) and Mays v. State, 519 So.2d 618 (Fla.1988). Additionally the state concedes that the order of revocation does not coincide with the affidavit of violation of probation and that a discrepancy exists in the sentencing order as to the amount of credit for time served. Accordingly, we affirm the sentence and we remand this cause to the trial court with instructions to make appropriate corrections to the order of revocation of probation and the order of sentence.

*809AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED.

ANSTEAD, DELL and STONE, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Blands v. State
Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida
Date Published: Aug 2, 1989
Citation: 546 So. 2d 808
Docket Number: No. 89-0616
Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.