Garvin v. State

939 So. 2d 1136, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 16958, 2006 WL 2872513
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 11, 2006·No. No. 1D05-5221·Published

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.

Footnotes

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

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

939 So. 2d 1136 (Garvin v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Aument v. State
868 So. 2d 682 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)