Merritt v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Merritt v. State

593 So. 2d 623, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 1687, 1992 WL 32783

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Merritt v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 567 So. 2d 1031 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 26, 1992·No. No. 91-0268·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s departure sentence. Barfield v. State, 594 So.2d 259 (Fla.1992). However, we remand for correction of the judgment. The jury below found the appellant guilty of “petit theft,” but for some unexplained reason, the words “petit theft” on the face of the judgment have been crossed out and the word “robbery” written next to it. The state concedes that this was an improper alteration. On remand, the trial court is directed to correct that line so that it reads “petit theft”.

GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and WARNER and GARRETT, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s departure sentence. Barfield v. State, 594 So.2d 259 (Fla.1992). However, we remand for correction of the judgment. The jury below found the appellant guilty of “petit theft,” but for some unexplained reason, the words “petit theft” on the face of the judgment have been crossed out and the word “robbery” written next to it. The state concedes that this was an improper alteration. On remand, the trial court is directed to correct that line so that it reads “petit theft”.

GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and WARNER and GARRETT, JJ., concur.

Merritt v. State, 593 So. 2d 623, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 1687, 1992 WL 32783 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

593 So. 2d 623 (Merritt v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related