Legal Opinion

Anfield v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided March 19, 1993No. 92-04594PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

615 So.2d 853 (1993)

Anthony ANFIELD, Appellant,

v.

STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 92-04594.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 19, 1993.

2Per curiam

Anfield appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct sentence. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Anfield claims the four consecutive three-year minimum mandatory sentences imposed pursuant to section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (1989), constitute an illegal sentence because he did not carry a firearm during the commission of the offenses. If Anfield's claim is true, the sentence is illegal. See Bell v. State, 589 So.2d…

3Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Koenig v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1992
  2. Bell v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1991
  3. Oramas v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1993

4Cited by5 opinions

  1. Poiteer v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1993
  2. Brown v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1994
  3. Oramas v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1993
  4. Stacey v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1995
  5. Mancino v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1997

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

Powered by the Exa API