Batten v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Batten v. State

557 So. 2d 679, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 1360, 1990 WL 19944

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 5, 1990

DocketNo. 89-124

StatusPublished

This text of 557 So. 2d 679 (Batten 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

Batten v. State, 557 So. 2d 679, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 1360, 1990 WL 19944 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Dewey Gerome Batten appeals his conviction on the charge of one count of manufacture of cannabis pursuant to § 893.13(1)(a), Fla.Stat. and one count of possession of cannabis pursuant to § 893.13(1)(f), Fla.Stat. We affirm, but note that due to the existence of a conflict between the standard judgment form and the probation order, it is not clear if Batten was adjudicated guilty of both offenses. By jury verdict Batten was found guilty of both offenses as charged. The standard judgment form contained in the record on appeal, however, adjudicates Batten guilty only as to one count of manufacturing cannabis. A second form, entitled “JUDGMENT OF GUILT AND PLACING DEFENDANT ON PROBATION” purports to adjudicate Batten guilty of both manufacturing cannabis and possession of more than 20 grams of cannabis. Nothing precludes Batten from being adjudicated guilty and sentenced for both offenses. Anderson v. State, 447 So.2d 236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Accordingly, we remand with directions that the trial court reconcile the two documents and clarify its intent by modifying or vacating one of the conflicting documents.

AFFIRMED.

BOOTH, THOMPSON and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Dewey Gerome Batten appeals his conviction on the charge of one count of manufacture of cannabis pursuant to § 893.13(1)(a), Fla.Stat. and one count of possession of cannabis pursuant to § 893.13(1)(f), Fla.Stat. We affirm, but note that due to the existence of a conflict between the standard judgment form and the probation order, it is not clear if Batten was adjudicated guilty of both offenses. By jury verdict Batten was found guilty of both offenses as charged. The standard judgment form contained in the record on appeal, however, adjudicates Batten guilty only as to one count of manufacturing cannabis. A second form, entitled “JUDGMENT OF GUILT AND PLACING DEFENDANT ON PROBATION” purports to adjudicate Batten guilty of both manufacturing cannabis and possession of more than 20 grams of cannabis. Nothing precludes Batten from being adjudicated guilty and sentenced for both offenses. Anderson v. State, 447 So.2d 236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Accordingly, we remand with directions that the trial court reconcile the two documents and clarify its intent by modifying or vacating one of the conflicting documents.

AFFIRMED.

BOOTH, THOMPSON and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

557 So. 2d 679, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 1360, 1990 WL 19944, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/batten-v-state-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack