Court Opinion

ID: 4032114
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-08 11:05:27.431441+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:50:30.010566
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM.
 

  The appellant filed a postconviction motion raising three claims. He acknowledges that the notice of appeal is untimely as to the first two claims. In the third claim he asserts that the Department of Corrections (“DOC”) is improperly consecutively running the sentence imposed in Duval County case number 16-2012-CF-3104 to the sentences imposed in 16-2011-CF-3527, even though he negotiated for concurrent imposition when he entered his plea in the 2012 case. He first approached the DOC to address this sentencing structure, and the DOC told him he needed to obtain a corrected judgment from the lower court in order to have the sentences run concurrently. The trial court denied the claim without any analysis or attachments conclusively refuting it.
 

  As there is an October 24, 2012, revised judgment in the record of the 2012 case, stating that the revision was to “Re-record to reflect concurrent sentencet,]” and which does indeed indicate the 2012 sentence was to be concurrently imposed to the 2011 sentences, we therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to either attach records conclusively refuting the appellant’s claim or to provide this revised judgment to the DOC.
 

  REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED IN PART, with directions.
 

  WOLF, LEWIS, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.