Frederickson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Frederickson v. State

585 So. 2d 506, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 9689, 1991 WL 185187

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 18, 1991

DocketNo. 90-3678

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 585 So. 2d 506 (Frederickson 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

Frederickson v. State, 585 So. 2d 506, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 9689, 1991 WL 185187 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Annette Frederickson challenges the trial court’s judgment and sentence for violating the terms of her probation for fourteen separate worthless check charges under Section 832.05(4)(a), Florida Statutes. We affirm on all issues raised since there is no apparent prejudice to the appellant.

However, in light of the obvious conflict which exists between the terms of the oral and written sentences, we note that several scrivener’s errors are apparent in the written sentences. Therefore, we hold that the trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence, in which the appellant was sentenced to five consecutive five-year sentences, with nine sentences to run concurrently to sentence 89-966, is the proper sentence of record. We remand to the trial court to enter an amended written sentence conforming to the oral pronouncement.

AFFIRMED.

SHIVERS and WOLF, JJ., and CAWTHON, Senior Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Annette Frederickson challenges the trial court’s judgment and sentence for violating the terms of her probation for fourteen separate worthless check charges under Section 832.05(4)(a), Florida Statutes. We affirm on all issues raised since there is no apparent prejudice to the appellant.

However, in light of the obvious conflict which exists between the terms of the oral and written sentences, we note that several scrivener’s errors are apparent in the written sentences. Therefore, we hold that the trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence, in which the appellant was sentenced to five consecutive five-year sentences, with nine sentences to run concurrently to sentence 89-966, is the proper sentence of record. We remand to the trial court to enter an amended written sentence conforming to the oral pronouncement.

AFFIRMED.

SHIVERS and WOLF, JJ., and CAWTHON, Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

585 So. 2d 506, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 9689, 1991 WL 185187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frederickson-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack