Levitt v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Levitt v. State

826 So. 2d 370, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 8730, 2002 WL 1368588

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 26, 2002

DocketNo. 2D00-4296

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 826 So. 2d 370 (Levitt 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

Levitt v. State, 826 So. 2d 370, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 8730, 2002 WL 1368588 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ALTENBERND, Judge.

Burcham Lee Levitt appeals his judgments and sentences for battery on a law enforcement officer, fleeing to elude, and resisting arrest without violence. We affirm the convictions. We reverse, however, the amended judgment that imposed an adjudication of guilt that the trial court had initially withheld. The sentence imposed at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing and reduced to writing controls, and the trial court erred in granting the State’s subsequent motion to correct the sentence and scoresheet. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(c) (Comm. Notes, 1980 Amend.); Cherry v. State, 439 So.2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Moreover, the State’s failure to bring prior convictions to the court’s attention at a sentencing hearing does not constitute a “scrivener’s error.” On remand, the trial court shall reinstate the original judgment dated September 15, 2000.

Reversed and remanded.

GREEN and SILBERMAN, JJ, concur.

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

ALTENBERND, Judge.

Burcham Lee Levitt appeals his judgments and sentences for battery on a law enforcement officer, fleeing to elude, and resisting arrest without violence. We affirm the convictions. We reverse, however, the amended judgment that imposed an adjudication of guilt that the trial court had initially withheld. The sentence imposed at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing and reduced to writing controls, and the trial court erred in granting the State’s subsequent motion to correct the sentence and scoresheet. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(c) (Comm. Notes, 1980 Amend.); Cherry v. State, 439 So.2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Moreover, the State’s failure to bring prior convictions to the court’s attention at a sentencing hearing does not constitute a “scrivener’s error.” On remand, the trial court shall reinstate the original judgment dated September 15, 2000.

Reversed and remanded.

GREEN and SILBERMAN, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

826 So. 2d 370, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 8730, 2002 WL 1368588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levitt-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack