Averett v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Averett v. State

10 So. 3d 1135, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 5424, 2009 WL 1393544

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 20, 2009

Docket4D09-166

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 10 So. 3d 1135 (Averett 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

Averett v. State, 10 So. 3d 1135, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 5424, 2009 WL 1393544 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).

With respect to that part of his first ground for relief in which he claimed that the judgment did not properly reflect the title and statute number of the offense for which he was charged in count V, and to which he entered a negotiated plea, we affirm without prejudice to his filing a motion to correct a scrivener’s error pursuant Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(a). See Brunson v. State, 951 So.2d 980 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Wells v. State, 796 So.2d 1276 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (noting that, in Boggs v. Wainwright, 223 So.2d 316 (Fla.1969), the supreme court effectively adopted Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(a) (“Clerical mistakes in judgments, decrees, *1136 or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time on its own initiative or on the motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the court orders.”), for use in criminal cases).

In all other respects, we affirm.

FARMER, MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).

With respect to that part of his first ground for relief in which he claimed that the judgment did not properly reflect the title and statute number of the offense for which he was charged in count V, and to which he entered a negotiated plea, we affirm without prejudice to his filing a motion to correct a scrivener’s error pursuant Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(a). See Brunson v. State, 951 So.2d 980 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Wells v. State, 796 So.2d 1276 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (noting that, in Boggs v. Wainwright, 223 So.2d 316 (Fla.1969), the supreme court effectively adopted Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(a) (“Clerical mistakes in judgments, decrees, *1136 or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time on its own initiative or on the motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the court orders.”), for use in criminal cases).

In all other respects, we affirm.

FARMER, MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 So. 3d 1135, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 5424, 2009 WL 1393544, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/averett-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack