JASON LAMAR GILBERT
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
[1] A criminal judgment must conform to the jury's verdict.
[2] A scrivener's error in a criminal judgment can be corrected by the trial court through a ministerial act.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Ministerial Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Jason Lamar Gilbert appeals his judgment and sentence following the jury’s return of a guilty verdict for first degree murder. We affirm the judgment and sentence without comment on the issues raised, but remand solely to correct an error in the judgment.
Appellant argues that the final judgment contains a scrivener’s error requiring reversal, and the State properly concedes error. This court has previously remanded final judgments in other criminal cases for correction where the judgment did not accurately reflect the offenses for which the defendant was convicted. See Ali v. State, 215 So. 3d 1250, 1251 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017); Widel v. State, 120 So. 3d 68, 69 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). The purpose of correcting a scrivener’s error in a criminal judgment is to ensure the judgment conforms with the jury’s verdict. 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.”).
Here, the final judgment reflects that appellant was convicted of felony murder under section 782.04(1)(a)2., Florida Statutes (2020), despite the State not pursuing the felony murder charge at trial. Although the trial court entered an order granting appellant’s motion to correct the error, that order was ineffective because it was filed more than sixty days after appellant’s motion was filed. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2)(B) (“[I]f the trial court does not file an order ruling on the motion within 60 days, the motion shall be deemed denied.”).
This scrivener’s error can be corrected through a ministerial act by the trial court rather than reversing the judgment, and without the need for a resentencing hearing. See Prentice v. State, 319 So. 3d 57, 62 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (“Since correction of the written judgment in this case is a ministerial act, neither resentencing nor Appellant’s presence is required for this purpose.”). Therefore, appellant’s presence in court is not required for the trial court to make this correction. See id.; Wolcoff v. State, 197 So. 3d 111, 112 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (noting a defendant is not required to be present for the correction of a scrivener’s error on remand).
Affirmed; remanded to correct scrivener’s error. KLINGENSMITH, C.J., CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Zaheer ALI v. State, 215 So. 3d 1250 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)
- Nester Samudio v. State, 460 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Widel v. State, 120 So. 3d 68 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
- Rodriguez v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2024)