ROBERT W. LONG, 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 the appellant's probation was legally imposed, but clerical errors in the judgment regarding the felony degree and statutory authority for costs require correction.
The appellant challenged the revocation of his probation and his resulting convictions and sentences. He argued his probationary term was illegally im…
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 Correction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant asks this court to find that the revocation of his probation was improper and, therefore, that his resulting convictions and sentences on the underlying offenses be reversed. We find no merit in the appellant’s argument that his probationary term was illegally imposed.
We do agree with the appellant that the judgment of guilt in Case No. 89-2982F should be corrected to reflect that the offense of attempted trafficking in cocaine is a second degree felony, not a first degree felony as reflected in that judgment. The appellant also argues that some of the court costs imposed upon him are improper because they are not authorized by the statutes cited. These citations are apparently misprinted on the judgment form. We remand for correction of the judgment to show the current applicable statutory authority for the imposition of the costs. See Veracierta v. State, 589 So. 2d 950 (Fla.2d DCA 1991).
Accordingly, we reverse the judgments in this case solely for the purpose of correcting the clerical error in the judgment in Case No. 89-2932F and for the purpose of correcting the statutory authority for the court costs. In all other respects, the judgments and sentences in this case are affirmed.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.