Jose Luis Raya v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Jose Luis Raya v. State of Florida

183 So. 3d 1120, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 11723, 2015 WL 4641535

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 5, 2015

Docket4D14-1587

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 183 So. 3d 1120 (Jose Luis Raya v. State of Florida) 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

Jose Luis Raya v. State of Florida, 183 So. 3d 1120, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 11723, 2015 WL 4641535 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

By order we granted rehearing and withdrew our opinion in Raya v. State, 2014 WL 4988391 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). Having now considered appellant’s pro se brief, we issue the following opinion.

Jose Luis Raya appeals the convictions and sentences imposed after he entered a plea of no contest to second degree murder and felonious possession of a firearm. After reviewing the record, we grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and we affirm the conviction and sentences. We find no merit to the claim raised in appellant’s pro se initial brief.

Nevertheless, we remand for the correction of a scrivener’s error in the written sentencing order for count 2. At sentencing, the court orally pronounced that the sentence in count 2 would run concurrently with the sentence imposed in count 1. However, the written sentencing order indicates that count 2 “shall run Consecutive to/Concurrent” the sentence in count 1. On remand, the trial court is directed to correct the written sentencing order so that it is consistent with the oral pronouncement. See Simmons v. State, 106 So.3d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (affirming and remanding for correction of a scrivener’s error in written judgment in an Anders appeal).

Affirmed and remanded with instructions.

DAMOORGIAN, CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.

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

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

By order we granted rehearing and withdrew our opinion in Raya v. State, 2014 WL 4988391 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). Having now considered appellant’s pro se brief, we issue the following opinion.

Jose Luis Raya appeals the convictions and sentences imposed after he entered a plea of no contest to second degree murder and felonious possession of a firearm. After reviewing the record, we grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and we affirm the conviction and sentences. We find no merit to the claim raised in appellant’s pro se initial brief.

Nevertheless, we remand for the correction of a scrivener’s error in the written sentencing order for count 2. At sentencing, the court orally pronounced that the sentence in count 2 would run concurrently with the sentence imposed in count 1. However, the written sentencing order indicates that count 2 “shall run Consecutive to/Concurrent” the sentence in count 1. On remand, the trial court is directed to correct the written sentencing order so that it is consistent with the oral pronouncement. See Simmons v. State, 106 So.3d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (affirming and remanding for correction of a scrivener’s error in written judgment in an Anders appeal).

Affirmed and remanded with instructions.

DAMOORGIAN, CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 So. 3d 1120, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 11723, 2015 WL 4641535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jose-luis-raya-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack