Bryant v. State

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DANIEL JOSEPH BRYANT, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. Case No. 2D00-372 ) Opinion filed December 5, 2001. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Glades County; Jack Lundy, Acting Circuit Judge. James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Bruce P. Taylor, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Erica M. Raffel, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee. SALCINES, Judge. Daniel Joseph Bryant has raised four issues on appeal. We affirm his convictions for aggravated assault with a firearm, resisting an officer without violence, and battery, but reverse for the trial court to correct clerical errors contained in the sentences. The State has conceded on appeal that resisting arrest without violence is not one of the offenses enumerated under section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (1999), for which a three-year minimum mandatory term is applicable. On remand, this provision should be stricken. As for the conviction for battery, the State also conceded that the written sentence failed to state the duration of the sentence imposed. On remand, the trial court should impose a one-year sentence as was orally pronounced. The State has called to our attention the Other Provisions section of the sentences. It is noted that in count one the sentence indicates that count one shall run consecutive to count two. In the same provision for count two, the sentence indicates that count two shall run consecutive to count one. In the oral pronouncement at sentencing, the trial court stated that count two shall run consecutive to count one. On remand, this error should be corrected. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions. FULMER, A.C.J., and COVINGTON, J., Concur. -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.