Davis v. State

652 So. 2d 929, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 3231, 1995 WL 133360
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Davis v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 608 So. 2d 540
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 29, 1995·No. No. 94-1477·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Clarence Davis (Davis) appeals from his sentence, claiming his judgment and sentencing guidelines scoresheet were never corrected to reflect the fact that attempted armed robbery with a firearm is a second-degree rather than a first-degree felony. The State properly admitted the clerical error below, and admits the error on appeal. §§ 812.13(2)(a), 777.04(4)(d), Fla.Stat. (1993). Davis also contends the scoresheet incorrectly scored the charge that was nolle prossed as part of a negotiated plea agreement. While we agree with Davis’ arguments on appeal, we note that these clerical errors do not affect the substance of his negotiated plea and sentence. Accordingly, we affirm Davis’ judgment and sentence but remand with instructions that the clerical errors in the judgment and scoresheet be corrected.

BOOTH, LAWRENCE and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

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

Davis v. State, 652 So. 2d 929, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 3231, 1995 WL 133360 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

652 So. 2d 929 (Davis v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.