 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Byrd v. State9/3/2003
ught to impose this sentence concurrently. However, after being erroneously advised by counsel that it had to be consecutive, the sentence was changed.
On appeal, the state accurately contends the trial court has the power to enter the order concurrently, but that the written order comports with the trial court's true intentions. However, the record indicates otherwise. It is apparent that the court changed its ruling only after being advised that the order had to be consecutive.
As a result, on remand we instruct the trial court to exercise its discretion and reconsider the imposition of the consecutive order.
REMANDED.
FARMER, C.J., and GROSS, J., concur.
|