C.W.P., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Court affirmed the trial court's placement of a juvenile in community control for attempted sexual battery but remanded to correct an internally inconsistent adjudication order that erroneously stated both sexual battery and attempted sexual battery.
A trial court's disposition placing a juvenile in community control for attempted sexual battery is affirmed, but the adjudication order must be corrected to eliminate internal inconsistency between its statement that the juvenile committed sexual battery and its statement that he attempted sexual battery.
[1] An adjudication order containing internal inconsistency regarding whether a juvenile committed sexual battery or attempted sexual battery must be corrected to conform to…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA juvenile was charged with sexual battery of an eleven-and-a-half-year-old victim under Florida Statutes Section 794.011(2). At the adjudicatory hear…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Clerical Error In Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
BOARDMAN, Judge.
We affirm the trial court’s placement of appellant in a community control program but remand for correction of the order of adjudication.
Appellant was charged with sexual battery of a victim eleven years of age or younger, pursuant to Section 794.011(2), Florida Statutes. Appellant challenged the propriety of prosecuting him under this statute because his victim was eleven and a half years old at the time of the offense. The trial court correctly ruled that section 794.011(2) was applicable here. Hansen v. State, 421 So. 2d 504 (Fla.1982).
The order states in one place that the trial court had found that appellant had committed sexual battery and in the next paragraph that appellant “did ... attempt to commit sexual battery.” (Emphasis supplied.) It is clear that the first statement is a clerical error since, at appellant’s adjudicatory hearing, the trial court directed a verdict in favor of appellant on the charge of sexual battery and ultimately found him guilty of attempted sexual battery. The order must be corrected so that it is internally consistent and conforms to the trial court’s oral pronouncement.
Accordingly, the disposition of appellant’s case is affirmed, but the cause is remanded for correction of the order. OTT, C.J., and DANAHY, J., concur.