Bloodworth v. State

884 So. 2d 381, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 13471, 2004 WL 2008410
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 10, 2004·No. No. 2D03-4877·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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).

COVINGTON, KELLY, and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.

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

Bloodworth v. State, 884 So. 2d 381, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 13471, 2004 WL 2008410 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

884 So. 2d 381 (Bloodworth v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Rucker
613 So. 2d 460 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1993)