N.S., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
N.S., APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
10 So. 3d 1136
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2009)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
N.S. pleaded no contest to manslaughter and robbery, both second degree felonies. See §§ 782.07(1) and 812.13, Florida Statutes (2007). The judgment entered by the trial court, however, indicates that the crimes were first degree felonies. As such, we remand for the court to correct the typographical error on the judgment. We affirm in all other respects.
Affirmed.
FARMER, HAZOURI and GERBER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eutsay v. State, 103 So. 3d 181 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…ng effectively denying discovery, and he preserves the issue, the burden will be on the State to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not proeedurally prejudiced. See Scipio v. State, 928 So. 2d 1138, 1149-50 (Fla.2006); Laidler v. State, 10 So. 3d 1136, 1139 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). Unless the State is able to meet this high burden, Petitioner will be entitled to a new trial. See Scipio, 928 So. 2d at 1148-50 (acknowledging that a finding that a discovery violation is harmless should be “the exception…
-
Euriell Laidler v. State, 69 So. 3d 1008 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…generally Traylor v. State, 596 So. 2d 957 (Fla.1992); Monte v. State, 51 So. 3d 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); Brown v. State, 45 So. 3d 110 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). REVERSED and REMANDED. WOLF, DAVIS, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur. . See Laidler v. State, 10 So. 3d 1136 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). . Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). . See Holland v. State, 773 So. 2d 1065, 1069 (Fla.2000). .Our decision on this point renders moot Appellant’s second issue on appeal. . See Pasha…
-
Charlot v. State, 85 So. 3d 1176 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…uance of his trial as a request to represent himself and act as his own attorney. While one court has stated that a motion for continuance is a decision to be made by the defense attorney, even over the objection of the client, see Laidler v. State, 10 So. 3d 1136, 1138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009), we can only assume that defense counsel in this case did not feel strongly that the need for a continuance was fundamental to his representation, because he did not seek to withdraw from representation. See Comment to Rule…