Gulledge v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gulledge v. State

275 So. 3d 261

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 10, 2019

DocketNo. 1D18-4905

StatusPublished

This text of 275 So. 3d 261 (Gulledge 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

Gulledge v. State, 275 So. 3d 261 (Fla. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Upon review pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we find no error with Appellant's judgment or sentence, and affirm. We write only to correct a scrivener's error on Appellant's written sentence. See *262Ashley v. State , 850 So. 2d 1265, 1268 n. 3 (Fla. 2003) (defining a scrivener's error as a written clerical error that is not "the result of a judicial determination or error"); Rivera v. State , 117 So. 3d 449 -50 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (remanding for correction of the written sentences to reflect the oral pronouncement in an Anders appeal). In the written sentence, the sentence imposed on count 3 is erroneously listed as count 1. On remand, the trial court shall correct the error.

Wetherell, Jay, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

Upon review pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we find no error with Appellant's judgment or sentence, and affirm. We write only to correct a scrivener's error on Appellant's written sentence. See *262Ashley v. State , 850 So. 2d 1265, 1268 n. 3 (Fla. 2003) (defining a scrivener's error as a written clerical error that is not "the result of a judicial determination or error"); Rivera v. State , 117 So. 3d 449 -50 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (remanding for correction of the written sentences to reflect the oral pronouncement in an Anders appeal). In the written sentence, the sentence imposed on count 3 is erroneously listed as count 1. On remand, the trial court shall correct the error.

Wetherell, Jay, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 So. 3d 261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gulledge-v-state-fladistctapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack