K.E.H. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

K.E.H. v. State

717 So. 2d 182, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 11773, 1998 WL 633933

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 17, 1998

DocketNo. 97-4925

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 717 So. 2d 182 (K.E.H. 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

K.E.H. v. State, 717 So. 2d 182, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 11773, 1998 WL 633933 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

JOANOS, Judge.

We affirm the delinquency adjudication and commitment in this appeal, which is brought pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). However, we remand for correction of the written order of adjudication and commitment, which incorrectly reflects that appellant entered a guilty plea, and also incorrectly reflects adjudication of both grand theft and dealing in stolen property. Appellant did not plead guilty but was found guilty of grand theft, and the state withdrew the charge of dealing in stolen property before the conclusion of the adjudicatory hearing. Finally, the order incorrectly reflects a public defender fee, which was not orally imposed. The written order must be corrected to conform to the court’s oral pronouncement. See, e.g. Barger v. State, 688 So.2d 449 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

WOLF and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

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

JOANOS, Judge.

We affirm the delinquency adjudication and commitment in this appeal, which is brought pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). However, we remand for correction of the written order of adjudication and commitment, which incorrectly reflects that appellant entered a guilty plea, and also incorrectly reflects adjudication of both grand theft and dealing in stolen property. Appellant did not plead guilty but was found guilty of grand theft, and the state withdrew the charge of dealing in stolen property before the conclusion of the adjudicatory hearing. Finally, the order incorrectly reflects a public defender fee, which was not orally imposed. The written order must be corrected to conform to the court’s oral pronouncement. See, e.g. Barger v. State, 688 So.2d 449 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

WOLF and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

717 So. 2d 182, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 11773, 1998 WL 633933, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keh-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack