Yates v. State, 429 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). · Go Syfert
Search
Yates v. State, 429 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
42 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Cunningham v. State, 818 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983 2004 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 815 cited at this page1 citing case
  • Cunningham v. State, 818 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).published
    Yates v. State, 429 So.2d 815, 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).
At page 816 appellant saw squad car, quickly placed his hand in his jacket pocket, and started walking faster; no founded suspicion to detain1 citing case1 citing court put it this way
  • Hill v. State, 561 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).published
    (appellant saw squad car, quickly placed his hand in his jacket pocket, and started walking faster; no founded suspicion to detain)
Other citing cases7 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Donald YATES a/K/a Joseph Morgan, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
82-718.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Apr 13, 1983.
Published opinion
429 So. 2d 815
Per Curiam.
Cited by 20 opinions  |  Published

Jerry Hill, Public Defender, and L.S. Alperstein, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Ann G. Paschall, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

After reviewing the briefs and record on appeal in this case, we find that the appellant has failed to demonstrate any reversible error, and therefore, the judgments and sentences appealed from are affirmed. However, at sentencing in open court, the court specifically retained jurisdiction over one-third of the sentence on count I of the information filed against the appellant but did not mention jurisdiction in connection with the sentences entered on counts II, III, IV, and V. The written judgments and sentences state that jurisdiction was retained on all counts.

Since a court's written order of judgment and sentence must not vary from its oral pronouncement, Gatti v. State, 324 So.2d 193 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), retention of jurisdiction must be stricken from the judgments and sentences entered in connection with counts II, III, IV, and V.

Accordingly, the cause is remanded to the trial court to allow correction of the apparent clerical errors hereinabove mentioned.

The judgments and sentences are affirmed in all other respects.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and LEHAN, JJ., concur.