Holton v. State
Holton v. State
666 So. 2d 1058; 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 630; 1996 WL 39596
(Southern Reporter, Second Series)
Holton v. State
Opinion of the Court
Appellant asserts, and the state agrees, that because the trial judge made contradictory oral pronouncements of sentence, remand is necessary in order to clarify the court’s intent. Although it appears that the judge may simply have misspoken in reiterating the sentence, in order to be certain, we remand to the lower court to clarify.
SENTENCE VACATED and REMANDED.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.