Killings v. State
Cases that cite this one
24 later published cases cite this decision.
- Edward v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)
- Gillespie v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)
- Grant v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)
- Washington v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)
- Colson v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)
- Widel v. Venz (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)
- Lickman v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)
- Smith v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)
- Banks v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)
- Caldeira v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)
- Smith v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)
- Maxey v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)
- Widel v. Venz (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)
- Jasmin v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)
- Swinney v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)
- Levine v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)
- Moore v. Peavey (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)
- Holveck v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)
- Reese v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)
- Singletary v. Benton (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)
- Duggan v. Department of Corrections (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)
- Henderson v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)
- Bowles v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)
- Forney v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Jimmy Lee KILLINGS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Robert E. Stone of Sullivan, Stone, Sullivan, LaJoi & Thacker, Vero Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Joan Fowler, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
We agree that the trial court did not err in determining that appellant's motion to correct his sentence should be denied. Contrary to appellant's claim, it does not appear that his sentences on all five (5) counts were ordered to be served consecutively. Rather, it appears that Counts II, III, V and VI were ordered to be served consecutively to Count I, but concurrently with each other. See § 921.16, Fla. Stat. (1987). Furthermore, any complaint appellant may have about the Department of Corrections' interpretation of these sentences must be addressed through administrative proceedings and, if necessary, by mandamus in the circuit court.
ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.