Murphy v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Murphy v. State

164 So. 3d 49, 2015 WL 1930093

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 29, 2015

Docket2D14-2061

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 164 So. 3d 49 (Murphy 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

Murphy v. State, 164 So. 3d 49, 2015 WL 1930093 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

CASANUEVA, Judge.

Based upon our independent review pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), we affirm Diane Gail Murphy’s judgment and sentence without further comment. However, we remand with directions to correct a scrivener’s error which appears in both the judgment and the order of probation. Ms. Murphy was charged with, entered a plea to, and was sentenced for felony petit theft (two or more prior convictions for theft). See § 812.014(3)(c), Fla. Stat. (2013). The judgment and order of probation, however, reflect that Ms. Murphy entered a plea to grand theft of property over $300, but less than $20,000. See § 812.014(2)(c). Accordingly, we remand for correction of these’ errors.

Affirmed and remanded with directions.

KHOUZAM and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.

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

CASANUEVA, Judge.

Based upon our independent review pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), we affirm Diane Gail Murphy’s judgment and sentence without further comment. However, we remand with directions to correct a scrivener’s error which appears in both the judgment and the order of probation. Ms. Murphy was charged with, entered a plea to, and was sentenced for felony petit theft (two or more prior convictions for theft). See § 812.014(3)(c), Fla. Stat. (2013). The judgment and order of probation, however, reflect that Ms. Murphy entered a plea to grand theft of property over $300, but less than $20,000. See § 812.014(2)(c). Accordingly, we remand for correction of these’ errors.

Affirmed and remanded with directions.

KHOUZAM and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 So. 3d 49, 2015 WL 1930093, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-state-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack