RICHARD REED, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed murder, sexual battery, and kidnapping convictions and sentences, correcting a clerical error in the sentencing departure order to reflect that all sentences run consecutive as intended.
When a sentencing departure order contains a clerical error that contradicts the oral pronouncement and written sentences, the appellate court may correct the error without remand if the record clearly shows the trial court's intent.
[1] A clerical error in a sentencing departure order that contradicts the oral pronouncement and written sentences may be corrected on appeal without remand when the record c…
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 intelligenceRichard Reed was convicted of first-degree murder, sexual battery, and kidnapping. The sentencing departure order contained a clerical error stating t…
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
PETERSON, Judge.
Richard Reed appeals his sentences after being convicted of first-degree murder, sexual battery, and kidnapping. He suggests that, because the written sentencing departure order varies from the consistent oral pronouncement of the sentences and the written sentences, we should remand this case so that the trial court can correct the sentence. We decline to remand.
It is clear from the transcript of the sentencing hearing and the written sentences that the sentence for kidnapping is to run consecutive to the sentences for the other two crimes. The departure order contains a clerical error stating that the sentence for kidnapping would run consecutive to the sentence for murder and concurrent to the sentence for sexual battery. Nothing exists in the record to suggest that the sentences were ever to be other than consecutive to each other. There was never any discussion at the sentencing hearing indicating that the sentences were to be other than consecutive to one another. We note the clerical error and amend the departure order to substitute the word “consecutive” for “concurrent.”
We find no merit in the other issue raised on appeal and affirm the judgments and sentences.
AFFIRMED.
GOSHORN, C.J., and GRIFFIN, J., concur.