Clements v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Clements v. State

734 So. 2d 543, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 6840, 1999 WL 495229

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 28, 1999

DocketNo. 97-05266

StatusPublished

This text of 734 So. 2d 543 (Clements 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

Clements v. State, 734 So. 2d 543, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 6840, 1999 WL 495229 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Clements challenges his conviction and habitual offender sentence for sexual battery. We affirm the conviction and sentence in all respects, however remand the judgment to correct a scrivener’s error. The jury found Clements guilty of sexual battery in violation of section 794.011(5), Florida Statutes (1997), a second-degree felony; however, the judgment reflects a conviction for sexual battery with great force likely to cause serious injury, a life felony.¹ We note that Clements was properly sentenced. Nevertheless the scrivener’s error would result in a higher guidelines score and more severe penalty if Clements is ever sentenced for subsequent offenses. The judgment should, therefore, be corrected on remand.

BLUE, A.C.J., and WHATLEY and STRINGER, JJ„ Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Clements challenges his conviction and habitual offender sentence for sexual battery. We affirm the conviction and sentence in all respects, however remand the judgment to correct a scrivener’s error. The jury found Clements guilty of sexual battery in violation of section 794.011(5), Florida Statutes (1997), a second-degree felony; however, the judgment reflects a conviction for sexual battery with great force likely to cause serious injury, a life felony.¹ We note that Clements was properly sentenced. Nevertheless the scrivener’s error would result in a higher guidelines score and more severe penalty if Clements is ever sentenced for subsequent offenses. The judgment should, therefore, be corrected on remand.

BLUE, A.C.J., and WHATLEY and STRINGER, JJ„ Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

734 So. 2d 543, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 6840, 1999 WL 495229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clements-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.