Aquino v. State

661 So. 2d 424, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 11121, 1995 WL 613181
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 20, 1995·No. No. 95-1181·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this Anders appeal,1 we find on the face of the record that there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and the written sentence. In the context of the entire plea and sentencing hearing, it appears that the discrepancy is the result of a scrivener’s error. Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to resolve the discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and the written order. Higginbotham v. State, 659 So.2d 461; Marchand v. State, 546 So.2d 1184 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Wilkins v. State, 543 So.2d 800 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, [425]*425554 So.2d 1170 (Fla.1989). In all other respects, the convictions and sentences are affirmed.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED for correction of scrivener’s error.

COBB, SHARP, W. and ANTOON, JJ., concur.

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

Aquino v. State, 661 So. 2d 424, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 11121, 1995 WL 613181 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

661 So. 2d 424 (Aquino v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Fletcher v. State
693 So. 2d 724 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
Hall v. State
675 So. 2d 712 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)