Parajon v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Parajon v. State

50 So. 3d 105, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 19111, 2010 WL 5093191

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 15, 2010

DocketNo. 3D09-2078

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 50 So. 3d 105 (Parajon 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

Parajon v. State, 50 So. 3d 105, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 19111, 2010 WL 5093191 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

WELLS, Judge.

Reiniel Parajon appeals his conviction and sentence for burglary of an occupied dwelling. The public defender filed a motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Having reserved ruling on the motion to withdraw and provided Parajon the opportunity to file a pro se brief — which he failed to exercise — we affirm Parajon’s conviction and sentence for burglary of an occupied dwelling.

We write only to address a clerical error that appears in the court’s written judgment. The transcripts and the verdict form reflect the jury returned a verdict of guilty of burglary of an occupied dwelling and not guilty of criminal mischief. However, the written judgment mistakenly recites that Parajon was found guilty of both burglary and criminal mischief. No sentence was imposed for criminal mischief. Because the written judgment must not [106]*106vary from the oral pronouncement, we remand to the trial court with instructions to enter a corrected written judgment. See Ashcraft v. State, 464 So.2d 697, 698 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Parajon need not be present for this function.

Affirmed as modified.

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

WELLS, Judge.

Reiniel Parajon appeals his conviction and sentence for burglary of an occupied dwelling. The public defender filed a motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Having reserved ruling on the motion to withdraw and provided Parajon the opportunity to file a pro se brief — which he failed to exercise — we affirm Parajon’s conviction and sentence for burglary of an occupied dwelling.

We write only to address a clerical error that appears in the court’s written judgment. The transcripts and the verdict form reflect the jury returned a verdict of guilty of burglary of an occupied dwelling and not guilty of criminal mischief. However, the written judgment mistakenly recites that Parajon was found guilty of both burglary and criminal mischief. No sentence was imposed for criminal mischief. Because the written judgment must not [106]*106vary from the oral pronouncement, we remand to the trial court with instructions to enter a corrected written judgment. See Ashcraft v. State, 464 So.2d 697, 698 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Parajon need not be present for this function.

Affirmed as modified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 So. 3d 105, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 19111, 2010 WL 5093191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parajon-v-state-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack