LETARIUS MATHIS, 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.
Letarius Mathis appeals the denial of his postconviction relief motion filed under Florida Rule 3.850. The court affirms the denial but remands for correction of the judgment to accurately reflect that Mathis was convicted of robbery with a weapon under the applicable statute.
The court affirmed the denial of the postconviction relief motion but remanded for ministerial correction of the judgment. The state conceded that Mathis's original plea was to robbery with a weapon under section 812.13(2)(b), punishable by a maximum of thirty years, not the life-sentence version under section 812.13(2)(a).
[1] A trial court's order denying a motion for postconviction relief may be affirmed even if the judgment contains a clerical error that requires correction.
[2] A criminal judgment must accurately reflect the offense to which a defendant pleaded no contest.
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“Thus, the instant record on its face is unclear as to whether the defendant originally entered a plea to the offense of robbery with a weapon, a first-degree felony punishable by a maximum of thirty years in prison under section 812.13(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1993), or to the offense of robbery with a firearm or other deadly weapon, a first-degree felony punishable by life under section 812.13(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1993).”
Identifies the core ambiguity in the record regarding which statute applied to Mathis's armed robbery conviction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMathis entered a no-contest plea pursuant to a written plea agreement to armed robbery, a first-degree felony with a maximum thirty-year sentence. The…
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 Plea Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
ANTOON, Judge.
Letarius Mathis (defendant) appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion for postconviction relief which was filed pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. We affirm the trial court’s order, but remand for correction of the judgment entered in this case.
The defendant entered a plea of no contest in accordance with the terms of a written plea agreement. The plea agreement stated that the defendant’s plea in Case No. 93-19098 was to the charge of “armed robbery,” a first-degree felony for which the maximum penalty is thirty years. The plea agreement did not make a specific reference to any Florida statute. The trial court accepted the terms of the agreement, departed downward from the sentencing guidelines, and sentenced the defendant to a term of five years’ probation. After twice violating the terms of his probation, the defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The scoresheet used at this sentencing hearing reflected seventy points for a first-degree felony punishable by a maximum of thirty years in prison. However, the defendant’s judgment indicated that he had been convicted of the offense of armed robbery, a first-degree felony punishable by life. Thus, the instant record on its face is unclear as to whether the defendant originally entered a plea to the offense of robbery with a weapon, a first-degree felony punishable by a maximum of thirty years in prison under section 812.13(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1993), or to the offense of robbery with a firearm or other deadly weapon, a first-degree felony punishable by life under section 812.13(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1993). The state resolves this uncertainty by conceding that the defendant’s original plea was to the offense of robbery with a weapon.
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s rule 3.850 motion but remand this matter to the trial court with instructions that the defendant’s judgment in Case No. 93-19098 be corrected to reflect that he was convicted of robbery with a weapon under section 812.13(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1993). We note that it is not necessary for the defendant to be present for this ministerial correction. McClendon v. State, 689 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).
AFFIRMED and REMANDED.
COBB and W. SHARP, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hall v. State, 912 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…error, we remand this cause to the trial court to correct the scoresheet to reflect that the primary offense is a level 9 offense. This correction does not affect the sentence, however, and may be done without Appellant’s presence. Mathis v. State, 704 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). AFFIRMED AND REMANDED. THOMPSON, PALMER and TORPY, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- McCLENDON v. State, 689 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)