C.W.P. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

C.W.P. v. State

424 So. 2d 200, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18445

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 5, 1983

DocketNo. 81-2601

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 424 So. 2d 200 (C.W.P. 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

C.W.P. v. State, 424 So. 2d 200, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18445 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

BOARDMAN, Judge.

We affirm the trial court’s placement of appellant in a community control program but remand for correction of the order of adjudication.

Appellant was charged with sexual battery of a victim eleven years of age or younger, pursuant to Section 794.011(2), Florida Statutes. Appellant challenged the propriety of prosecuting him under this statute because his victim was eleven and a half years old at the time of the offense. The trial court correctly ruled that section 794.011(2) was applicable here. Hansen v. State, 421 So.2d 504 (Fla.1982).

The order states in one place that the trial court had found that appellant had committed sexual battery and in the next paragraph that appellant “did ... attempt to commit sexual battery.” (Emphasis supplied.) It is clear that the first statement is a clerical error since, at appellant’s adjudicatory hearing, the trial court directed a verdict in favor of appellant on the charge of sexual battery and ultimately found him guilty of attempted sexual battery. The order must be corrected so that it is internally consistent and conforms to the trial court’s oral pronouncement.

Accordingly, the disposition of appellant’s case is affirmed, but the cause is remanded for correction of the order.

OTT, C.J., and DANAHY, J., concur.

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

BOARDMAN, Judge.

We affirm the trial court’s placement of appellant in a community control program but remand for correction of the order of adjudication.

Appellant was charged with sexual battery of a victim eleven years of age or younger, pursuant to Section 794.011(2), Florida Statutes. Appellant challenged the propriety of prosecuting him under this statute because his victim was eleven and a half years old at the time of the offense. The trial court correctly ruled that section 794.011(2) was applicable here. Hansen v. State, 421 So.2d 504 (Fla.1982).

The order states in one place that the trial court had found that appellant had committed sexual battery and in the next paragraph that appellant “did ... attempt to commit sexual battery.” (Emphasis supplied.) It is clear that the first statement is a clerical error since, at appellant’s adjudicatory hearing, the trial court directed a verdict in favor of appellant on the charge of sexual battery and ultimately found him guilty of attempted sexual battery. The order must be corrected so that it is internally consistent and conforms to the trial court’s oral pronouncement.

Accordingly, the disposition of appellant’s case is affirmed, but the cause is remanded for correction of the order.

OTT, C.J., and DANAHY, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

424 So. 2d 200, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18445, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cwp-v-state-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack