Noell v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Noell v. State

193 So. 3d 1016, 2016 WL 3421475, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 8854

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 3, 2016·No. No. 1D15-5352·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm, in part, the denial of the appellant’s motion to correct illegal sentence. However, we remand for the trial court to strike the appellant’s designation as a sexual offender for count II (unlawful use of a two-way communications device) on the written judgment and sentence, as that offense does not qualify for sexual offender designation under section 943,0435(l)(a)l., Florida Statutes (2012). Because it is a ministerial act, the appellant need not be present. See Bauder v. State, 983 So.2d 1244 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).

AFFIRMED in part; REMANDED in part with directions.

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

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm, in part, the denial of the appellant’s motion to correct illegal sentence. However, we remand for the trial court to strike the appellant’s designation as a sexual offender for count II (unlawful use of a two-way communications device) on the written judgment and sentence, as that offense does not qualify for sexual offender designation under section 943,0435(l)(a)l., Florida Statutes (2012). Because it is a ministerial act, the appellant need not be present. See Bauder v. State, 983 So.2d 1244 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).

AFFIRMED in part; REMANDED in part with directions.

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

Noell v. State, 193 So. 3d 1016, 2016 WL 3421475, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 8854 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

193 So. 3d 1016 (Noell v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related