RICHARD GRANGER, 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 held that scrivener's errors existed in the written judgment and sentencing documents, requiring correction.
Richard Granger appealed his conviction and sentence for discharge of a destructive device and conspiracy, citing errors in the written judgment and s…
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 Scrivener'S Error cases and more on FLexlaw
HALL, Judge.
Richard Granger appeals his conviction and sentence for discharge of a destructive device and conspiracy. He presents several issues for review; however, we find merit only in the issue relating to scrivener’s errors.
We agree that scrivener’s errors appear on the written judgment and sentencing documents, as well as on the probation order. The entries for the degree of each crime on the written judgment have been inadvertently transposed. Count 1, conspiracy to discharge a destructive device under section 777.04(3), Florida Statutes (1985), should be indicated as a second-degree felony. Count 2, discharge of a destructive device under section 790.161(3), Florida Statutes (1985), should be indicated as a first-degree felony.
Likewise, entries on the sentencing documents for counts 1 and 2 have been interchanged. To be consistent with the trial court’s oral pronouncements, the sentence for count 1 should be indicated as a term of twelve months followed by four years’ probation. The sentence for count 2 should be indicated as a term of ten years’ imprisonment.
The sentences for each count also appear incorrectly on the probation order. Accordingly, we remand this case for corrections consistent with this opinion, but affirm Granger’s convictions and sentences in all other respects.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and FRANK, J„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marinelli v. State, 706 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…n remand, the order should be corrected to reflect the offenses for which Marinelli was convicted, taking into consideration that one of the two misdemean- or stalking convictions must be vacated pursuant to this court’s order. See Granger v. State, 575 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Accordingly, the trial court is directed to impose a single conviction for misdemeanor stalking and correct the scrivener’s error in the probation order. The trial court may also readdress restitution and costs. Reversed and re…