Legal Opinion

Mincey v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided December 24, 1997No. 97-3028Published

1Per curiam

More than two years after being sentenced, appellant filed a motion to correct *1195sentence under rule 3.800 on the ground that his sentence is illegal because it was ordered to be consecutive to another yet-to-be imposed sentence for violating conditional release. He relies on our decision in Lyons v. State, 672 So.2d 654 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), holding that where a sentence starts to run at the expiration of another sentence, the record must reflect the terms of the other sentence. We came to that conclusion in Lyons because of Wallace v. State, 41 Fla. 547, 26 So. 713 (1899); however, we note…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Davis v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1995
  2. Wallace v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1899
  3. Scantling v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1997
  4. Lyons v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1996

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

Powered by the Exa API