Manucy v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Manucy v. State

670 So. 2d 1134, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 3082, 1996 WL 140209

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 29, 1996

DocketNo. 95-2139

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 670 So. 2d 1134 (Manucy 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

Manucy v. State, 670 So. 2d 1134, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 3082, 1996 WL 140209 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

DAUKSCH, Judge.

In this appeal, conducted pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we affirm the convictions and sentences. However, we also correct a scrivener’s error regarding community service as a special condition of probation.

During the sentencing hearing, the trial court stated: “I don’t know how I got this community service. I don’t intend you to do any of that.” Despite the court’s statements, the orders of probation appearing in the record include 100 hours community service as a special condition.

When a discrepancy exists between the trial court’s oral disposition and the written order with regard to special conditions of probation or community control, this court customarily remands the case to address the discrepancy. See Cleveland v. State, 617 So.2d 1166 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). In Cleveland, the trial court’s intent was unclear because the written judgment included certain special conditions of community control that had gone unaddressed altogether at the sentencing hearing. However, as indicated, in the instant case the trial court has already indicated that community service not be included as a special condition of appellant’s probation. Cleveland is thus distinguishable. Accordingly, we strike the special conditions of community service as a scrivener’s error.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

HARRIS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

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

DAUKSCH, Judge.

In this appeal, conducted pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we affirm the convictions and sentences. However, we also correct a scrivener’s error regarding community service as a special condition of probation.

During the sentencing hearing, the trial court stated: “I don’t know how I got this community service. I don’t intend you to do any of that.” Despite the court’s statements, the orders of probation appearing in the record include 100 hours community service as a special condition.

When a discrepancy exists between the trial court’s oral disposition and the written order with regard to special conditions of probation or community control, this court customarily remands the case to address the discrepancy. See Cleveland v. State, 617 So.2d 1166 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). In Cleveland, the trial court’s intent was unclear because the written judgment included certain special conditions of community control that had gone unaddressed altogether at the sentencing hearing. However, as indicated, in the instant case the trial court has already indicated that community service not be included as a special condition of appellant’s probation. Cleveland is thus distinguishable. Accordingly, we strike the special conditions of community service as a scrivener’s error.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

HARRIS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

670 So. 2d 1134, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 3082, 1996 WL 140209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manucy-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack