Muse v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Muse v. State

888 So. 2d 710, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 18287, 2004 WL 2903869

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 3, 2004

DocketNo. 1D04-1083

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 888 So. 2d 710 (Muse 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

Muse v. State, 888 So. 2d 710, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 18287, 2004 WL 2903869 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The public defender’s office filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). We agree there are no arguable issues on appeal and affirm. We, however, remand this cause for correction of a scrivener’s error on the written robbery judgment. The judgment erroneously indicates the appellant, Derrick Muse, entered a plea of guilty. The record shows that the appellant was found guilty of the charge by jury. The trial court is therefore directed to correct the written judgment. This cause is affirmed in all other respects.

AFFIRMED but REMANDED for correction of scrivener’s error.

ERVIN, BARFIELD, and KAHN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The public defender’s office filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). We agree there are no arguable issues on appeal and affirm. We, however, remand this cause for correction of a scrivener’s error on the written robbery judgment. The judgment erroneously indicates the appellant, Derrick Muse, entered a plea of guilty. The record shows that the appellant was found guilty of the charge by jury. The trial court is therefore directed to correct the written judgment. This cause is affirmed in all other respects.

AFFIRMED but REMANDED for correction of scrivener’s error.

ERVIN, BARFIELD, and KAHN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

888 So. 2d 710, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 18287, 2004 WL 2903869, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/muse-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack