NESTER SAMUDIO, 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.
The court affirmed the appellant's convictions but remanded for correction of clerical errors in the written judgment and sentence form.
The appellant was charged with and convicted of trafficking in cocaine, conspiracy to traffic in cocaine, and attempted delivery of a controlled subst…
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 Delivery Of Controlled Substance cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHOONOVER, Judge.
After reviewing the briefs and record on appeal in this case, we find that the appellant has failed to demonstrate any reversible error, and, accordingly, we affirm his convictions. Clerical errors in the court’s written judgment and sentence form, however, require that we remand for correction of that form.
The state of Florida charged the appellant with trafficking in cocaine, conspiracy to traffic in cocaine, and delivery of a controlled substance. At the conclusion of appellant’s trial, the jury found him guilty of trafficking in cocaine, conspiracy to traffic in cocaine, and attempted delivery of a controlled substance. The trial court orally adjudicated appellant guilty of those offenses and subsequently sentenced him to serve fifteen years on the trafficking charge, fifteen years on the conspiracy charge, and five years on the attempted delivery charge. The written judgment form, however, reflects that the appellant was found guilty of delivery of a controlled substance rather than attempted delivery.
The court’s written judgment and sentence must not vary from its oral pronouncement, Yates v. State, 429 So. 2d 815 (Fla.2d DCA 1983), and the court’s judgment must conform to the jury’s verdict. Hicks v. State, 411 So. 2d 1025 (Fla.2d DCA 1982). Therefore, the judgment and sentence form must be corrected to show that appellant was found guilty of attempted delivery of a controlled substance, was adjudicated guilty of that offense, and was sentenced for that offense.
We, accordingly, remand this cause to the trial court for correction of the error, but subject to our decision in State v. Samudio, 460 So. 2d 419, affirm in all other respects.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
HOBSON, A.C.J., and GRIMES, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Nester Samudio, 460 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…ons that the trial court sentence appellee to serve a mandatory-minimum term of fifteen years for each of the two convictions, to be served concurrently, and to impose the $250,000 fines required by law. Subject to our decision in Samudio v. State, 460 So. 2d 418, the judgment and sentences are affirmed in all other respects. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. HOBSON, A.C.J., and GRIMES, J., concur.…
-
Devlin v. State, 224 So. 3d 803 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…e being found guilty on count 2 of the lesser included offense of misdemeanor petit theft, the judgment incorrectly reflects that Mr. Devlin was convicted in count 2 of the charged offense of grand theft, a third-degree felony. See Samudio v. State, 460 So. 2d 418, 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (“[T]he court’s judgment must conform to the jury’s verdict.” (citing Hicks v. State, 411 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982))). Further, although the sentencing transcript reflects that the trial court imposed a time-served dispo…
-
McLAUGHLIN v. State, 698 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…that charge. Additionally, no sentence was imposed for that count and it was not included in the sentencing guidelines scoresheet. Thus, we strike this count from the judgment of conviction but affirm it in all other respects. See Samudio v. State, 460 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). . § 843.02, Fla. Slat. (1995). . § 790.23, Fla. Stat. (1995). . That statute provided that the term " 'law enforcement officer’ includes, but shall not be limited to...." Soverino, 356 So. 2d at 271 n. 1 (emphasis added). We d…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In the Interest of R.B. v. State, 429 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Yates v. State, 429 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- State v. Nester Samudio, 460 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Hicks v. State, 411 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)