Mackey v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mackey v. State

631 So. 2d 382, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 1018, 1994 WL 45303

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 15, 1994·No. No. 93-1376·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, John Mackey, appeals his sentence contending that the trial court’s sentencing order did not conform to its oral pronouncement of sentence. We affirm.

A review of the record reveals that the court reporter made a scrivener’s error in the original transcript. Upon correction of the scrivener’s error, we determine that the trial court’s sentencing order conforms with the oral pronouncement of sentence. We therefore affirm on the rationale of Brown v. State, 423 So.2d 599, 600 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) and Sandstrom v. State, 390 So.2d 448 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), review denied, 397 So.2d 779 (Fla.1981).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, John Mackey, appeals his sentence contending that the trial court’s sentencing order did not conform to its oral pronouncement of sentence. We affirm.

A review of the record reveals that the court reporter made a scrivener’s error in the original transcript. Upon correction of the scrivener’s error, we determine that the trial court’s sentencing order conforms with the oral pronouncement of sentence. We therefore affirm on the rationale of Brown v. State, 423 So.2d 599, 600 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) and Sandstrom v. State, 390 So.2d 448 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), review denied, 397 So.2d 779 (Fla.1981).

Affirmed.

Mackey v. State, 631 So. 2d 382, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 1018, 1994 WL 45303 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

631 So. 2d 382 (Mackey v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related