TOMMY THOMAS, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 Supreme Court affirmed that a discrepancy between oral findings of probation violations and written order stating additional violations constitutes a non-fundamental scrivener's error not correctable on direct appeal without preservation.
A scrivener's error in a probation revocation order that lists additional violations beyond those orally found is not fundamental error correctable on direct appeal absent preservation, even though it is a patent error.
[1] A scrivener's error in a probation revocation order that does not affect the sentence is not fundamental error correctable on direct appeal without preservation, even if…
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 intelligence“although this is a patent error, because the error has no quantitative effect on the sentence, it is not so serious that it should be corrected on appeal as fundamental error”
Court's explanation of why the scrivener's error does not rise to the level of fundamental error despite being patent
Thomas was found by the trial court to have violated one condition of probation orally, but the written revocation order stated he violated seven addi…
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 Motion To Correct Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Thomas v. State, 725 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), on the basis of direct and express conflict. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We recently resolved this conflict in Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla.2000). Thomas contends that fundamental error occurred when the trial court orally found that he had violated one condition of his probation, but the written order revoking probation stated that he had violated an additional seven conditions of probation. The district court characterized this as a “scrivener’s error” that did not constitute fundamental error correctable on direct appeal absent preservation. See Thomas, 725 So. 2d at 1148.1 We concluded in Maddox that although this is a patent error, because the error has no quantitative effect on the sentence, it is not so serious that it should be corrected on appeal as fundamental error. 760 So. 2d at 99. We therefore approve the decision of the Second District.
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur. . It is clear that the defendant or the State may seek to correct a scrivener's error by filing a motion to correct sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b). See Amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.111(e) & 3.800 & Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.020(h), 9.140, & 9.600, 761 So. 2d 1015 (Fla.1999), reh’g granted, 761 So. 2d at 1025. In this case, the error was not preserved for appellate review.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (27 total)
-
Gammon v. State, 778 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b). Although we recognize this as a patent error, it is not a serious or fundamental error, and we are powerless to order the court to strike references to that condition from the order. See Thomas v. State, 763 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 2000); Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2000). Affirmed. FULMER, A.C.J., and STRINGER, J„ concur.…
-
Sheena Latson v. State, 193 So. 3d 1070 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…l. Because Appellant did not raise this claim to the trial court either by objection at sentencing or by motion to correct sentencing error- pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b), she is not entitled to relief. See Thomas v. State, 763 So. 2d 316, 316 n. 1 (Fla.2000) (refusing to correct an unpreserved scrivener’s error where neither the defendant nor the State sought to correct it by filing a motion to correct sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)); Perkins v. Sta…
-
Jones v. State, 898 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…a motion to correct sentence pursuant to rule 3.800(b)(2) on July 26, 2004. See Gammon v. State, 778 So. 2d 390, 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Smith v. State, 780 So. 2d 166, 167 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Jelks, 770 So. 2d at 185; see also Thomas v. State, 763 So. 2d 316, 316 n. 1 (Fla.2000). In that motion, he asked the trial court to enter [*210] such findings in writing. However, the trial court never ruled on his motion. Rule 3.800(b)(2) provides that a motion filed pursuant to that rule is deemed denied if th…
Previewing 3 of 27 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2000)
- Amendments TO Fla. Rules OF Crim. Procedure 3.111(e) & 3.800 & Fla. Rules OF App. Procedure 9.020(h), 791 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 2001)
- Thomas v. State, 725 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)