Labrandon Bodison v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Labrandon Bodison v. State of Florida

174 So. 3d 1011

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 16, 2015

Docket1D13-6210

StatusPublished

This text of 174 So. 3d 1011 (Labrandon Bodison 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

Labrandon Bodison v. State of Florida, 174 So. 3d 1011 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this Anders * appeal, appellant raises a scrivener’s error in his sentence. He notes that when the court orally pronounced his sentence in case number 2012-CF-50S, the court stated that sentence was to run concurrently with the sentences imposed in case number 2011-CF-622. However, in the written judgment and sentence, the court failed to place a check mark on the appropriate line indicating that the sentence in case number 2012-CF-503 was to run concurrently. Appellant preserved this issue by filing a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b). However, the trial court failed to rule on the motion within 60 days, and thus it was deemed denied. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(b)(1)(B). The State was given the opportunity to respond to this Anders appeal pursuant to Harrison v. State, 146 So.3d 76, 80-81 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014), and agrees that the error should be corrected.

We reverse and remand for the trial court to conform the written sentence to the oral pronouncement. See Knight v. State, 114 So.3d 1067 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). Appellant need not be present for the correction of this scrivener’s error. Appellant’s judgment and sentence are otherwise affirmed.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED with instructions.

LEWIS, C.J., WOLF, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

*

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

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

PER CURIAM.

In this Anders * appeal, appellant raises a scrivener’s error in his sentence. He notes that when the court orally pronounced his sentence in case number 2012-CF-50S, the court stated that sentence was to run concurrently with the sentences imposed in case number 2011-CF-622. However, in the written judgment and sentence, the court failed to place a check mark on the appropriate line indicating that the sentence in case number 2012-CF-503 was to run concurrently. Appellant preserved this issue by filing a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b). However, the trial court failed to rule on the motion within 60 days, and thus it was deemed denied. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(b)(1)(B). The State was given the opportunity to respond to this Anders appeal pursuant to Harrison v. State, 146 So.3d 76, 80-81 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014), and agrees that the error should be corrected.

We reverse and remand for the trial court to conform the written sentence to the oral pronouncement. See Knight v. State, 114 So.3d 1067 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). Appellant need not be present for the correction of this scrivener’s error. Appellant’s judgment and sentence are otherwise affirmed.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED with instructions.

LEWIS, C.J., WOLF, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

*

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 So. 3d 1011, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/labrandon-bodison-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack