Colantuono v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Colantuono v. State

853 So. 2d 575, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 13172, 2003 WL 22047834

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 3, 2003

DocketNo. 4D02-2999

StatusPublished

This text of 853 So. 2d 575 (Colantuono 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

Colantuono v. State, 853 So. 2d 575, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 13172, 2003 WL 22047834 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals an order entered after an evidentiary hearing on a violation of probation. During the pendency of this appeal, the defendant filed a motion to correct certain technical errors in the sentencing order, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). The court denied the motion. Defense counsel has now raised these errors in this appeal. The State agrees that the sentencing order needs correction. We therefore remand the ease to the trial court for correction of the following technical errors.

First, the trial court failed to enter a written sentencing order on count two after making its oral pronouncement. Second, the order refers to the original [576]*576sentence on count two as “two years probation” instead of correctly reflecting the one year term imposed by the court. Third, the order refers to the substantive violation as having occurred on May 23, 2001, when it occurred on February 2, 2002. The case is remanded for the trial court to correct these errors. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.110(b), 9.020(g); Marinelli v. State, 706 So.2d 1374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); McBride v. State, 655 So.2d 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).

STEVENSON, MAY, JJ„ and CHAVIES, MICHAEL B., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals an order entered after an evidentiary hearing on a violation of probation. During the pendency of this appeal, the defendant filed a motion to correct certain technical errors in the sentencing order, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). The court denied the motion. Defense counsel has now raised these errors in this appeal. The State agrees that the sentencing order needs correction. We therefore remand the ease to the trial court for correction of the following technical errors.

First, the trial court failed to enter a written sentencing order on count two after making its oral pronouncement. Second, the order refers to the original [576]*576sentence on count two as “two years probation” instead of correctly reflecting the one year term imposed by the court. Third, the order refers to the substantive violation as having occurred on May 23, 2001, when it occurred on February 2, 2002. The case is remanded for the trial court to correct these errors. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.110(b), 9.020(g); Marinelli v. State, 706 So.2d 1374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); McBride v. State, 655 So.2d 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).

STEVENSON, MAY, JJ„ and CHAVIES, MICHAEL B., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

853 So. 2d 575, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 13172, 2003 WL 22047834, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colantuono-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack