Masterson v. State

133 So. 3d 1085, 2014 WL 464013, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 1378
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedFebruary 4, 2014
DocketNo. 1D11-2377
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 133 So. 3d 1085 (Masterson 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
Masterson v. State, 133 So. 3d 1085, 2014 WL 464013, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 1378 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this Anders1 appeal, Appellant challenges his conviction and sentence on several grounds; the only one that merits discussion is his claim that he was convicted of an uncharged “aggravated” offense. Based on our independent review of the record and the supplemental briefs of counsel filed pursuant to this Court’s Causey2 order, we find no reversible error but remand for correction of a technical error in the judgment.

The State’s information charged Appellant with a violation of section 316.1935(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2010), relating to fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer, and the factual allegations in the information track the language of this statutory provision. However, the information lists the title of the offense as “aggravated” fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer. This incorrect title was repeated by the attorneys and the court throughout the proceedings below, but the evidence presented at trial, the instructions to the jury, and the verdict form all corresponded to the elements of the non-aggravated offense. The written judgment cites the correct statutory provision and degree of crime for the non-aggravated offense, but again, incorrectly uses the term “aggravated” in the title of the crime.

Because it is clear that Appellant was charged with, and found guilty of, the non-aggravated offense proscribed by section 316.1935(3)(a), we affirm his conviction and sentence but remand for the trial court to correct the written judgment to reflect the title of the offense as “fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer.” See Jones v. State, 620 So.2d 236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Palmer v. State, 935 So.2d 630 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). Appellant need not be present for this purely ministerial correction. Jones v. State, 969 So.2d 1126 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).

AFFIRMED and REMANDED with instructions.

LEWIS, C.J., CLARK and RAY, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Isaaih X Ash v. State of Florida
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2025
TREVORISSE THOMAS v. STATE OF FLORIDA
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2023
White v. State
199 So. 3d 497 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)
Rhodes v. State
168 So. 3d 244 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
133 So. 3d 1085, 2014 WL 464013, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 1378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/masterson-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.