Bloodworth v. State
884 So. 2d 381, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 13471, 2004 WL 2008410
This text of 884 So. 2d 381 (Bloodworth 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
Bloodworth v. State, 884 So. 2d 381, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 13471, 2004 WL 2008410 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).
Opinion
Affirmed. See State v. Rucker, 613 So.2d 460 (Fla.1993). We do not consider the State’s request to correct a scrivener’s error in the written sentencing order because the error was not brought to the trial court’s attention by way of a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
State v. Rucker
613 So. 2d 460 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1993)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
884 So. 2d 381, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 13471, 2004 WL 2008410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bloodworth-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.