Garvin v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Garvin v. State

939 So. 2d 1136, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 16958, 2006 WL 2872513

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 11, 2006

DocketNo. 1D05-5221

StatusPublished

This text of 939 So. 2d 1136 (Garvin 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

Garvin v. State, 939 So. 2d 1136, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 16958, 2006 WL 2872513 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this case filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we find no preserved reversible error apparent from the face of the record. However, we note that in case number 05-268, the trial court orally pronounced a sentence of three years’ imprisonment to be followed by two years of probation, but the written sentence erroneously indicates that the incarcerative portion of the sentence is to be followed by five years of probation.¹ Although the written sentence is wrong, this Court cannot direct the trial court to correct the error because the issue was not preserved for appeal by the filing of a timely motion to correct sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b). See Aument v. State, 868 So.2d 682 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).

Accordingly, we affirm the appellant’s judgment and sentence without prejudice to appellant’s filing a timely motion for postconviction relief to correct the sentencing discrepancy.

AFFIRMED.

WEBSTER, BENTON, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this case filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we find no preserved reversible error apparent from the face of the record. However, we note that in case number 05-268, the trial court orally pronounced a sentence of three years’ imprisonment to be followed by two years of probation, but the written sentence erroneously indicates that the incarcerative portion of the sentence is to be followed by five years of probation.¹ Although the written sentence is wrong, this Court cannot direct the trial court to correct the error because the issue was not preserved for appeal by the filing of a timely motion to correct sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b). See Aument v. State, 868 So.2d 682 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).

Accordingly, we affirm the appellant’s judgment and sentence without prejudice to appellant’s filing a timely motion for postconviction relief to correct the sentencing discrepancy.

AFFIRMED.

WEBSTER, BENTON, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

939 So. 2d 1136, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 16958, 2006 WL 2872513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garvin-v-state-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack