Ahrens v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ahrens v. State

861 So. 2d 521, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 19246, 2003 WL 22970869

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 19, 2003

DocketNo. 5D02-3953

StatusPublished

This text of 861 So. 2d 521 (Ahrens v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ahrens v. State, 861 So. 2d 521, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 19246, 2003 WL 22970869 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

MONACO, J.

Jay Ahrens appeals from a judgment and sentence concerning his conviction after a jury trial of simple battery. Mr. Ahrens asserts, first, that the trial judge improperly interfered with jury selection. As there was no objection to the actions of the trial judge, and as Mr. Ahrens unconditionally accepted and tendered the jury, he has failed to preserve the error that he alleges. See, e.g., Joiner v. State, 618 So.2d 174 (Fla.1993); Barnette v. State, 768 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Karp v. State, 698 So.2d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).

Mr. Ahrens accurately points out, however, that the judgment contains a scrivener’s error in that it lists the battery for which he was convicted as a third degree felony, rather than a first degree misdemeanor. See § 784.03, Fla. Stat. (2002).

Accordingly, we affirm except to the extent that the judgment misidentifies the quality of the offense of which Mr. Ahrens was convicted, and we remand for correction of the scrivener’s error.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED to correct scrivener’s error.

SAWAYA, C.J., and GRIFFIN, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MONACO, J.

Jay Ahrens appeals from a judgment and sentence concerning his conviction after a jury trial of simple battery. Mr. Ahrens asserts, first, that the trial judge improperly interfered with jury selection. As there was no objection to the actions of the trial judge, and as Mr. Ahrens unconditionally accepted and tendered the jury, he has failed to preserve the error that he alleges. See, e.g., Joiner v. State, 618 So.2d 174 (Fla.1993); Barnette v. State, 768 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Karp v. State, 698 So.2d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).

Mr. Ahrens accurately points out, however, that the judgment contains a scrivener’s error in that it lists the battery for which he was convicted as a third degree felony, rather than a first degree misdemeanor. See § 784.03, Fla. Stat. (2002).

Accordingly, we affirm except to the extent that the judgment misidentifies the quality of the offense of which Mr. Ahrens was convicted, and we remand for correction of the scrivener’s error.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED to correct scrivener’s error.

SAWAYA, C.J., and GRIFFIN, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

861 So. 2d 521, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 19246, 2003 WL 22970869, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ahrens-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack