Rudd v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rudd v. State

948 So. 2d 1040, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 2592, 2007 WL 542915

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 23, 2007

DocketNo. 5D06-2341

StatusPublished

This text of 948 So. 2d 1040 (Rudd 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

Rudd v. State, 948 So. 2d 1040, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 2592, 2007 WL 542915 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the denial of Dean A. Rudd’s petition for writ of habeas corpus as he has shown no entitlement to immediate release. However, our review of the record revealed a clerical error in the sentencing documents. The plea and sentencing transcript clearly reflect that Rudd pled guilty or nolo contendere to six cases then pending in Marion County circuit court. However, the court minutes and sentencing documents erroneously reflect that Rudd entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to a seventh case, case no. 42-2004-CF2014, which was also pending against Rudd but was not before the court for disposition. The transcript of the proceedings clearly indicates that Rudd entered no dispositive plea to that case and, therefore, the court had no jurisdiction to enter the judgment and sentence on that case.

In our view, the most expedient manner with which to handle this matter is to vacate the judgment and sentence in Marion County circuit court case no. 42-2004-CF2014. On remand, the State may proceed against Rudd on that case if it so chooses.

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED FOR CORRECTION OF CLERICAL ERROR.

GRIFFIN, ORFINGER and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the denial of Dean A. Rudd’s petition for writ of habeas corpus as he has shown no entitlement to immediate release. However, our review of the record revealed a clerical error in the sentencing documents. The plea and sentencing transcript clearly reflect that Rudd pled guilty or nolo contendere to six cases then pending in Marion County circuit court. However, the court minutes and sentencing documents erroneously reflect that Rudd entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to a seventh case, case no. 42-2004-CF2014, which was also pending against Rudd but was not before the court for disposition. The transcript of the proceedings clearly indicates that Rudd entered no dispositive plea to that case and, therefore, the court had no jurisdiction to enter the judgment and sentence on that case.

In our view, the most expedient manner with which to handle this matter is to vacate the judgment and sentence in Marion County circuit court case no. 42-2004-CF2014. On remand, the State may proceed against Rudd on that case if it so chooses.

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED FOR CORRECTION OF CLERICAL ERROR.

GRIFFIN, ORFINGER and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

948 So. 2d 1040, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 2592, 2007 WL 542915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rudd-v-state-fladistctapp-2007.