Florida District Courts of Appeal, 2000

Hinchcliff v. State

Hinchcliff v. State
Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided July 12, 2000 · Browning, Ervin, Nortwick
765 So. 2d 179; 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 13925; 2000 WL 951425 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Hinchcliff v. State

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

The evidence was undisputed that appellants were invited into the victims’ home prior to any crime being committed; therefore, their burglary convictions must be reversed pursuant to Delgado v. State, 25 Fla. L. Weekly S631, — So.2d-, 2000 WL 1205960 (Fla. Aug. 24, 2000) (on reh’g). In accordance with section 924.34, Florida Statutes (1997), the case is remanded to the trial court for entry of judgments and sentences for simple battery as to appellant Brian Hinchcliff, who was convicted of burglary-with-a-battery in violation of section 810.02(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1997), and trespass of an occupied dwelling as to appellant Charles Hin-chcliff, who was convicted of burglary of a dwelling in violation of section 810.02(3)(a). Because a new judgment and sentence must be entered as to appellant Charles Hinchcliff, we direct the trial court to conform the written sentence for Count II to the oral sentencing pronouncement of “time served.” Based upon this disposition, we do not reach appellant Brian Hin-chcliff s second issue.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED with directions.

ERVIN, VAN NORTWICK and BROWNING, JJ, CONCUR.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.