Howard v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Howard v. State

128 So. 3d 929, 2013 WL 6696113, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 20244

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Howard v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 3987 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 20, 2013·No. No. 1D13-564·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm Appellant’s convictions and sentences. However, due to an apparent scrivener’s error, the written sentence is ambiguous as to the intended sentence structure. Given the oral pronouncement of concurrent twenty-year terms for the two counts of which Appellant was convicted, the court’s intent is clear from a review of the entire record. We, therefore, remand this case for correction of the written sentence to conform to the oral pronouncement. See Bryant v. State, 124 So.3d 256 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). Appellant need not be present for the correction of this clerical error. Id.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED.

THOMAS, RAY, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm Appellant’s convictions and sentences. However, due to an apparent scrivener’s error, the written sentence is ambiguous as to the intended sentence structure. Given the oral pronouncement of concurrent twenty-year terms for the two counts of which Appellant was convicted, the court’s intent is clear from a review of the entire record. We, therefore, remand this case for correction of the written sentence to conform to the oral pronouncement. See Bryant v. State, 124 So.3d 256 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). Appellant need not be present for the correction of this clerical error. Id.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED.

THOMAS, RAY, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.

Howard v. State, 128 So. 3d 929, 2013 WL 6696113, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 20244 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

128 So. 3d 929 (Howard v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related