Horton v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Horton v. State

431 So. 2d 731, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 20776

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 24, 1983

DocketNo. 82-2419

StatusPublished

This text of 431 So. 2d 731 (Horton 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

Horton v. State, 431 So. 2d 731, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 20776 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner appealed untimely from the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief. This court ordered review by habeas corpus. Subsequent to this court’s remand to the trial court for a determination as to whether the trial court vacated the judg[732]*732ment as to count II as a result of clerical error, the trial court entered a corrected nunc pro tunc order which contained no reference to an adjudication under count II. Accordingly, classification of the defendant under the applicable Youthful Offender Statute is mandated unless the omission of an adjudication under count II constituted a clerical error subject to correction by the court. We therefore grant the writ for the limited purpose of permitting the trial court either to correct the order to reflect an adjudication under count II or to impose a lawful sentence.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner appealed untimely from the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief. This court ordered review by habeas corpus. Subsequent to this court’s remand to the trial court for a determination as to whether the trial court vacated the judg[732]*732ment as to count II as a result of clerical error, the trial court entered a corrected nunc pro tunc order which contained no reference to an adjudication under count II. Accordingly, classification of the defendant under the applicable Youthful Offender Statute is mandated unless the omission of an adjudication under count II constituted a clerical error subject to correction by the court. We therefore grant the writ for the limited purpose of permitting the trial court either to correct the order to reflect an adjudication under count II or to impose a lawful sentence.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

431 So. 2d 731, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 20776, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horton-v-state-fladistctapp-1983.