Hinkle v. State

WHATLEY, Judge.

The appellant, Charles Hinkle, challenges his judgments and sentences for possession of cannabis and possession of drug paraphernalia. We find no merit in his contention that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress and, thus, affirm his convictions without further comment. We do, however, remand “to clarify whether the guidelines seoresheet referred to by the state and defense counsel at the sentencing hearing was ‘physically present before the judge and the court on the date of sentencing.’” Belew v. State, 616 So.2d 120 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), and cases cited…