Ciarletta v. State

54 So. 3d 1039, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1518, 2011 WL 408999
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 9, 2011·No. No. 4D10-667·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the denial of appellant’s Rule 3.850 motion. The State, however, concedes that the judgment contains a scrivener’s error. We remand for entry of a [1040]*1040corrected judgment which properly identifies the offense to which appellant pleaded.

STEVENSON, CIKLIN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

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

Ciarletta v. State, 54 So. 3d 1039, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1518, 2011 WL 408999 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

54 So. 3d 1039 (Ciarletta v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related