Santiago v. State

149 So. 3d 743, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 17749, 2014 WL 5478128
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Santiago v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8305
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 31, 2014·No. No. 5D14-73·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm on all issues, but remand for correction of two scrivener’s errors. As part of a negotiated plea agreement, Defendant entered a nolo contendere plea to possession of cocaine, a lesser-included offense of the charged crime of possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver. Unfortunately, the Judgment and the corrected Order of Disposition both erroneously recite that Defendant was adjudicated guilty of the charged offense. We must, [744]*744therefore, remand for correction of these two scrivener’s errors to reflect the correct offense to which Defendant entered his plea. We affirm in all other respects.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED with instructions.

TORPY, C.J., SAWAYA and BERGER, JJ., concur.

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

Santiago v. State, 149 So. 3d 743, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 17749, 2014 WL 5478128 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

149 So. 3d 743 (Santiago v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.