Fox v. State
88 So. 3d 357, 2012 WL 1605266, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 7307
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Fox v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 20426 →
Opinion
Neil Fox appeals his conviction for cultivation of marijuana. On appeal, he raises two issues challenging his conviction, which we affirm without comment. He correctly contends, however, that the written judgment mistakenly reflects that he was adjudicated guilty, even though the trial court orally pronounced that it was going to withhold adjudication. As the state properly concedes, remand is necessary to correct this scrivener’s error.
Affirmed, but remanded for correction of scrivener’s error.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Fox v. State, 88 So. 3d 357, 2012 WL 1605266, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 7307 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).
88 So. 3d 357 (Fox v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.