ROBERT GIBSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
ROBERT GIBSON, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
933 So. 2d 1267
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2006)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
The state properly concedes that, as a result of a scrivener’s error, the judgment and sentence in Case No. 91-7125 erroneously indicates that appellant was sentenced to prison on a violation of probation charge as to both Counts II and III, rather than solely as to Count III. However, appellant’s claim that he is entitled to additional jail credit for time served is without merit. Echols v. State, 660 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
REVERSED and REMANDED for Correction of Scrivener’s error. THOMPSON, MONACO and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Murphy v. State, 24 So. 3d 1220 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…he State should have known that the FBI expert’s testimony was false and misleading. The postconviction court did not rule on this claim. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to allow the postconviction court to consider the claim. See Kafus v. State, 933 So. 2d 1267, 1267 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Calzada v. State, 934 So. 2d 541, 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). V. CONCLUSION For these reasons, we reverse the post-conviction court’s summary denial of Mr. Murphy’s rule 3.850 motion and remand for further proceedings consist…
-
Damas Joseph v. State, 211 So. 3d 340 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…IB, 2, and 3. The trial court denied these grounds and we affirm. The trial court however did not rule on ground 1A. We therefore reverse in part and remand the case to the trial court to rule on ground 1A of the defendant’s motion. Kafus v. State, 933 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (affirming the denial of the addressed claims, but reversing for the trial court to rule on the claims not addressed). Affirmed in part; reversed in part. Taylor and Forst, JJ., concur.…
-
Mercado v. State, 22 So. 3d 122 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…ake a specific finding to support a sentence enhancement. Nevertheless, we remand this case to allow the postconviction court to address the remaining issues raised in grounds three and nine that were not the subject of a ruling. See Kafus v. State, 933 So. 2d 1267, 1267 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Calzada v. State, 934 So. 2d 541, 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions. KHOUZAM and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Echols v. State, 660 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)