Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

659 So. 2d 432

Stevenson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided August 11, 1995

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1995-08-11

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently July 2005

1 state decisions

Relies on 506 So. 2d 1085 - Daniels v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1995-08-11

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1The appellant complains that the sentence pronounced orally at the sentencing hearing provides that he shall serve his sentences concurrently, but that the written sentences are silent on this point. Section 921.16(1), Florida Statutes (1993), provides in pertinent part:

A defendant convicted of two or more offenses charged in the same indictment, information, or affidavit or in consolidated indictments, informations, or affidavits shall serve the sentences of imprisonment concurrently unless the court directs that two or more of the sentences be served consecutively.

¶2Since appellant’s offenses were charged in the same information, and since the trial *433court did not direct that appellant’s sentences be served consecutively, they are to be served concurrently. See also, Daniels v. State, 506 So.2d 1085 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (where judgment does not state otherwise, defendant’s sentences on 24 counts are by law to be served concurrently).

¶3We find no merit in the other point raised on appeal.

¶4AFFIRMED.

PETERSON, C.J., and GOSHORN and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
/659/so2d/432 · .json · Public domain