Guadarrama v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Guadarrama v. State

95 So. 3d 1025, 2012 WL 3627402, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 14157

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 24, 2012

DocketNo. 5D11-1716

StatusPublished

This text of 95 So. 3d 1025 (Guadarrama 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

Guadarrama v. State, 95 So. 3d 1025, 2012 WL 3627402, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 14157 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PALMER, J.

Jesus A. Guadarrama (defendant) appeals his convictions and sentences for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, possession of burglary tools, and loitering or prowling. He argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal as to the possession and loitering charges, and he also raises a scrivener’s error in the judgment as to the aggravated battery charge. We affirm the convictions and sentences, but remand for correction of the scrivener’s error.

The State correctly concedes that the judgment incorrectly lists the defendant’s aggravated battery with a deadly weapon¹ conviction as a first-degree felony, when it was actually a second-degree felony that could not be reclassified to first-degree in this case. See Brady v. State, 65 So.3d 599, 601-02 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). The defendant does not argue that the error affected his sentence. Accordingly, we remand for correction of this scrivener’s error.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED.

ORFINGER, C.J., and EVANDER, J., concur.

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

PALMER, J.

Jesus A. Guadarrama (defendant) appeals his convictions and sentences for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, possession of burglary tools, and loitering or prowling. He argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal as to the possession and loitering charges, and he also raises a scrivener’s error in the judgment as to the aggravated battery charge. We affirm the convictions and sentences, but remand for correction of the scrivener’s error.

The State correctly concedes that the judgment incorrectly lists the defendant’s aggravated battery with a deadly weapon¹ conviction as a first-degree felony, when it was actually a second-degree felony that could not be reclassified to first-degree in this case. See Brady v. State, 65 So.3d 599, 601-02 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). The defendant does not argue that the error affected his sentence. Accordingly, we remand for correction of this scrivener’s error.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED.

ORFINGER, C.J., and EVANDER, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 So. 3d 1025, 2012 WL 3627402, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 14157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guadarrama-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack