Hughes v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hughes v. State

677 So. 2d 305, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 73, 1996 WL 5137

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 8, 1996

DocketNo. 95-1145

StatusPublished

This text of 677 So. 2d 305 (Hughes 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

Hughes v. State, 677 So. 2d 305, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 73, 1996 WL 5137 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

MICKLE, Judge.

The sole issue raised in this direct criminal appeal concerns a scrivener’s error on the judgment form, which erroneously classifies the offense of attempted burglary of a dwelling as a second-degree felony when, pursuant to the provisions of sections 810.02(3) and 777.04(4)(e), Florida Statutes (1993), it is a felony of the third-degree. See Jones v. State, 608 So.2d 797 (Fla.1992) (attempted burglary is a third-degree felony).

We REMAND to the trial court for the sole purpose of correcting this clerical error. Appellant acknowledges that the sentencing guidelines scoresheet contains no such error and hence that his sentence is not affected. [306]*306As such, appellant need not be present below when the correction is made to the judgment.

JOANOS and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur. ■

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

MICKLE, Judge.

The sole issue raised in this direct criminal appeal concerns a scrivener’s error on the judgment form, which erroneously classifies the offense of attempted burglary of a dwelling as a second-degree felony when, pursuant to the provisions of sections 810.02(3) and 777.04(4)(e), Florida Statutes (1993), it is a felony of the third-degree. See Jones v. State, 608 So.2d 797 (Fla.1992) (attempted burglary is a third-degree felony).

We REMAND to the trial court for the sole purpose of correcting this clerical error. Appellant acknowledges that the sentencing guidelines scoresheet contains no such error and hence that his sentence is not affected. [306]*306As such, appellant need not be present below when the correction is made to the judgment.

JOANOS and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur. ■

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

677 So. 2d 305, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 73, 1996 WL 5137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hughes-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack