Rodriguez v. State

915 So. 2d 231, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 18563, 2005 WL 3116462
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Rodriguez v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 875 So. 2d 642
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 23, 2005·No. No. 3D05-860·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order denying the defendant’s motion to clarify sentence. The trial court properly sentenced the defendant to a ten-year minimum mandatory sentence under section 775.087(2)(a)(1), Florida Statutes (1999). The State concedes, however, that the written order improperly shows the de[232]*232fendant was sentenced to the ten-year minimum mandatory sentence under the habitual offender statute. Therefore, we remand to the trial court with directions to correct the ministerial error in the written sentence, in accordance with the oral pronouncement.

Affirmed and remanded for correction of sentencing order.

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

Rodriguez v. State, 915 So. 2d 231, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 18563, 2005 WL 3116462 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

915 So. 2d 231 (Rodriguez v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.