Ashcraft v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ashcraft v. State

464 So. 2d 697, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 602, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12638

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 8, 1985

DocketNo. 84-811

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 464 So. 2d 697 (Ashcraft 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

Ashcraft v. State, 464 So. 2d 697, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 602, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12638 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

OTT, Acting Chief Judge.

After reviewing the briefs and record on appeal, we find that appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error and we therefore affirm. However, because of a clerical error in the court’s written judgment, we remand for correction.

The parties agree that a jury found appellant guilty of unarmed burglary, a second-degree felony. However, the written judgment erroneously adjudicates appellant guilty of armed burglary, a first-degree felony. No sentence was imposed for this crime.

Consequently, we remand this cause to the trial court for correction of the clerical error. See Zigler v. State, 446 So.2d 266 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). In all other respects, this cause is affirmed.

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED FOR CORRECTION OF JUDGMENT.

SCHOONOVER and LEHAN, JJ., concur.

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