Randall v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Randall v. State

842 So. 2d 245, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 4754, 28 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 923

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 9, 2003

DocketNo. 2D02-4404

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 842 So. 2d 245 (Randall 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

Randall v. State, 842 So. 2d 245, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 4754, 28 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 923 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

SILBERMAN, Judge.

Jon C. Randall challenges the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence. We affirm; however, we note that on the face of the record, a discrepancy exists between the oral pronouncement and the written sentence. The plea agreement and transcript indicate that Randall was convicted of two counts of attempted capital sexual battery, a first-degree felony. However, the judgment lists the offenses as two counts of attempted sexual battery, a second-degree felony. In the context of the entire plea and sentencing hearing, it appears that the discrepancy is the result of a scrivener’s error. Accordingly, the case is remanded for the trial court to correct the written sentencing documents to conform to the oral pronouncement. Williams v. State, 744 So.2d 1156 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Randall need not be present for the correction of the sentencing documents.

Affirmed with directions.

WHATLEY and NORTHCUTT, JJ., Concur.

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

SILBERMAN, Judge.

Jon C. Randall challenges the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence. We affirm; however, we note that on the face of the record, a discrepancy exists between the oral pronouncement and the written sentence. The plea agreement and transcript indicate that Randall was convicted of two counts of attempted capital sexual battery, a first-degree felony. However, the judgment lists the offenses as two counts of attempted sexual battery, a second-degree felony. In the context of the entire plea and sentencing hearing, it appears that the discrepancy is the result of a scrivener’s error. Accordingly, the case is remanded for the trial court to correct the written sentencing documents to conform to the oral pronouncement. Williams v. State, 744 So.2d 1156 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Randall need not be present for the correction of the sentencing documents.

Affirmed with directions.

WHATLEY and NORTHCUTT, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

842 So. 2d 245, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 4754, 28 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 923, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/randall-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack