MICHELLE DAVIS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 2007-08-10
No. 5D05-3124
SAWAYA and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
962 So. 2d 1035 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2007)

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.


Holding

The court held that the judgment and sentence must be corrected to accurately reflect the terms of the negotiated plea agreement.


Facts & Procedural History

Ms. Davis pled guilty to kidnapping in exchange for a ten-year sentence, stipulating she did not possess a firearm. The judgment and sentence incorrec…

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.


Opinion of the Court
MONACO, J.

MONACO, J.

The appellant, Michelle Davis, seeks by this appeal to have the judgment and sentence rendered by the trial court corrected to reflect accurately the terms of her negotiated plea. The State agrees, as do we.

Ms. Davis pled guilty to a charge of kidnapping in exchange for a ten-year prison sentence. The parties stipulated that she did not possess a firearm during the commission of the offense. The judgment and sentence has already been corrected a number of times. Unfortunately, however, it still reflects that Ms. Davis was convicted of kidnapping with a firearm. Additionally, the judgment incorrectly designates the kidnapping offense to which she pled as a life felony, rather than a first degree felony punishable for a term of years not exceeding life. See § 787.01(2), Fla. Stat. (2003). Although the trial court apparently ordered the judgment and sentence to be corrected, it still reads incorrectly.

Accordingly, we reverse the judgment, affirm the sentence of 10 years incarceration, and remand the matter to the trial court for correction of the judgment in accordance with the plea agreement and this opinion. As this amounts to the correction of a scrivener’s error, Ms. Davis need not be present when this is accomplished. See Firsher v. State, 834 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 859 So. 2d 514 (Fla.2003).

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

SAWAYA and LAWSON, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw