Henderson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Henderson v. State

87 So. 3d 14, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 4222, 2012 WL 874662

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 16, 2012

DocketNo. 5D12-234

StatusPublished

This text of 87 So. 3d 14 (Henderson 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

Henderson v. State, 87 So. 3d 14, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 4222, 2012 WL 874662 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

SAWAYA, J.

We affirm the trial court’s summary denial of Defendant’s Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). However, we remand this case to the trial court to strike the sentence imposed for Count II because Defendant was acquitted of the charges alleged in that count. The sentence imposed in the sentencing order attached to the judgment of conviction is an obvious scrivener’s error that should be corrected.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED.

GRIFFIN and PALMER, JJ., concur.

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

SAWAYA, J.

We affirm the trial court’s summary denial of Defendant’s Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). However, we remand this case to the trial court to strike the sentence imposed for Count II because Defendant was acquitted of the charges alleged in that count. The sentence imposed in the sentencing order attached to the judgment of conviction is an obvious scrivener’s error that should be corrected.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED.

GRIFFIN and PALMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 So. 3d 14, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 4222, 2012 WL 874662, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henderson-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.