Batten v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Batten v. State

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

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Batten v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 589 So. 2d 1030 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 5, 1990·No. No. 89-124·Published

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.

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

Pincite

557 So. 2d 679 (Batten v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related