Dorival v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dorival v. State

768 So. 2d 1233, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 12709, 2000 WL 1471773

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 4, 2000

DocketNo. 3D99-3012

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 768 So. 2d 1233 (Dorival 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

Dorival v. State, 768 So. 2d 1233, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 12709, 2000 WL 1471773 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the defendant’s conviction in all respects. See U.S. v. Wilson, 421 U.S. 309, 95 S.Ct. 1802, 44 L.Ed.2d 186 (1975); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.830 (1999). However, as the State concedes, there was a scrivener’s error in the written judgment which stated that the defendant was found guilty of direct criminal contempt rather than indirect criminal contempt. Accordingly, we affirm and remand to the lower court to correct this error.

Affirmed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the defendant’s conviction in all respects. See U.S. v. Wilson, 421 U.S. 309, 95 S.Ct. 1802, 44 L.Ed.2d 186 (1975); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.830 (1999). However, as the State concedes, there was a scrivener’s error in the written judgment which stated that the defendant was found guilty of direct criminal contempt rather than indirect criminal contempt. Accordingly, we affirm and remand to the lower court to correct this error.

Affirmed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

768 So. 2d 1233, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 12709, 2000 WL 1471773, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dorival-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack