Legal Opinion

Harden v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided March 25, 1992No. 91-01593PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

LEHAN, Judge.

We affirm the denial of defendant’s motion filed under rule 3.800, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, to correct an alleged illegal sentence.

The sentence, which involved the stacking of mandatory minimum sentences, is inconsistent with the principle announced in Branam v. State, 554 So.2d 512 (Fla.1990). See also Boom v. State, 574 So.2d 1213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Nonetheless, it appears to have been proper at the time it was imposed and, in fact, subsequently affirmed by this court in Harden v. State, 541 So.2d 1179 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). See Palmer v. State, 438 So.2d 1 (Fla.1983).

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Branam v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1990
  2. McCuiston v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1987
  3. Boom v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1991
  4. Brown v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1991

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Fannin v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2000

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API