Botelho v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Botelho v. State

629 So. 2d 961, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 13226, 1993 WL 533864

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 22, 1993·No. No. 92-01163·Published

Opinion

DANAHY, Acting Chief Judge.

We affirm the appellant’s judgments and sentences in all respects except we remand the judgment as to Count I for correction of a clerical error. The judgment reflects a conviction for conspiracy to commit a burglary, which is a third degree felony. §§ 777.-04(4)(c) and 810.02, Fla.Stat. (1991). However, the judgment classifies the crime as a second degree felony. The judgment should be corrected to show the offense in Count I to be a third degree felony. The appellant need not be present for this purpose.

Affirmed; remanded.

SCHOONOVER, J., and GALLEN, THOMAS M., Associate Judge, concur.

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

DANAHY, Acting Chief Judge.

We affirm the appellant’s judgments and sentences in all respects except we remand the judgment as to Count I for correction of a clerical error. The judgment reflects a conviction for conspiracy to commit a burglary, which is a third degree felony. §§ 777.-04(4)(c) and 810.02, Fla.Stat. (1991). However, the judgment classifies the crime as a second degree felony. The judgment should be corrected to show the offense in Count I to be a third degree felony. The appellant need not be present for this purpose.

Affirmed; remanded.

SCHOONOVER, J., and GALLEN, THOMAS M., Associate Judge, concur.

Botelho v. State, 629 So. 2d 961, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 13226, 1993 WL 533864 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

629 So. 2d 961 (Botelho v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.