Siroky v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Siroky v. State

532 So. 2d 1116, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2347, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4635, 1988 WL 107885

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 20, 1988

DocketNo. 87-1912

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 532 So. 2d 1116 (Siroky 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

Siroky v. State, 532 So. 2d 1116, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2347, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4635, 1988 WL 107885 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

COBB, Judge.

The appellant, Leo Siroky, contends that the trial court, through scrivener’s error, entered a written order which did not conform to the court’s oral pronouncement at the time of sentencing. The judge verbally indicated his intention to impose a special condition of community control, i.e., that defendant have only supervised contact with his children; instead, the written order subsequently entered prohibited all association with the children. The state concedes this necessity for correction. The appeal is otherwise without merit.

Accordingly, we affirm, but remand this cause to the trial court for the purpose of conforming the written order to the verbal pronouncement pursuant to Cahill v. State, 526 So.2d 220 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.

DAUKSCH and COWART, JJ., concur.

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

COBB, Judge.

The appellant, Leo Siroky, contends that the trial court, through scrivener’s error, entered a written order which did not conform to the court’s oral pronouncement at the time of sentencing. The judge verbally indicated his intention to impose a special condition of community control, i.e., that defendant have only supervised contact with his children; instead, the written order subsequently entered prohibited all association with the children. The state concedes this necessity for correction. The appeal is otherwise without merit.

Accordingly, we affirm, but remand this cause to the trial court for the purpose of conforming the written order to the verbal pronouncement pursuant to Cahill v. State, 526 So.2d 220 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.

DAUKSCH and COWART, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

532 So. 2d 1116, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2347, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4635, 1988 WL 107885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/siroky-v-state-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack