ARTHUR LITTLE, 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.
Arthur Little appeals the trial court's denial of his motion for clarification regarding an alleged scrivener's error in his judgment. Little claims the judgment incorrectly lists him as convicted of armed burglary (first-degree felony) when he actually pleaded to unarmed burglary (second-degree felony). The appellate court affirmed, holding that a motion for clarification is not authorized under Rule 3.700 and that Little must instead pursue a sworn motion for postconviction relief under Rule 3.850.
The court held that no motion for clarification is authorized by Rule 3.700, and that Little must instead file a sworn motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 to challenge the alleged scrivener's error in the judgment.
[1] An unsworn motion for clarification is not an authorized procedural vehicle to challenge a scrivener's error in a judgment.
[2] A claim of a scrivener's error in a judgment must be raised by a sworn motion for postconviction relief.
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“We affirm because no motion "for clarification" is authorized by rule 3.700.”
The court's primary holding that the procedural mechanism Little used was not authorized.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceArthur Little entered a negotiated plea agreement involving seven informations and thirty-three counts. The judgment entered in circuit court case num…
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 Sworn Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1290] PER CURIAM.
Arthur Little appeals the denial of his unsworn motion “for clarification.” In his motion, Mr. Little claims that there is a scrivener’s error in the judgment in circuit court case number CF04-2601-XX, which was entered pursuant to a negotiated plea involving seven informations and thirty-three counts. Mr. Little asserts that the judgment erroneously states he was convicted of armed burglary of a dwelling in count 3, a first-degree felony punishable by a term of years not exceeding life imprisonment, when he actually pleaded to the lesser offense of unarmed burglary of a dwelling, a second-degree felony. Mr. Little is not challenging the sentence of 8% years’ imprisonment on this count, but only the description of the offense in the judgment.
The trial court denied this motion on the merits, claiming that it was filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.700. The trial court reasoned that the written plea agreement disclosed a plea to a lesser offense for count -one of this information, but a plea “as charged” for count three. The plea agreement, however, refers to a plea “as-charged — burglary of a dwelling,” when the actual charged offense was armed burglary. Other documents from the file indicate that the offense was intended to be treated as a second-degree felony and not as a first-degree felony punishable by life imprisonment.
We affirm because no motion “for clarification” is authorized by rule 3.700. As a practical matter, unless this alleged scrivener’s error affected a future scoresheet in another case, it is difficult to determine how this possible error might harm Mr. Little, who is currently serving prison terms on twenty-five separate felonies as a result of his plea agreement. Mr. Little may raise this claim only by a sworn motion for posteonviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and not by an unsworn motion for clarification. See Canty v. State, 884 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Thus, we affirm the order of the trial court without prejudice to any right Mr. Little might have to file a timely, facially sufficient, and sworn motion for postconviction relief pursuant to rule 3.850. Assuming he files such a motion, it may well be that the trial court will need to review a transcript of the sentencing hearing to resolve the matter. Affirmed.
ALTENBERND, NORTHCUTT and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.