PAUL WILLARD, 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.
Paul Willard appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to correct a sentencing error involving restitution. The appellate court agreed that the trial court committed a scrivener's error by failing to state the correct amount of restitution still owed following probation revocation, rather than the original restitution amount.
The trial court erred and committed a scrivener's error by failing to state the correct amount of restitution still owed in the final judgment following revocation of probation. The proper amount should have been the remaining balance owed, not the original amount awarded.
[1] A trial court's order denying a motion to correct a sentencing error is reviewed de novo.
[2] Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 allows a trial court to correct a sentencing error.
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“Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 allows a trial court to correct a sentencing error.”
Establishes the legal basis for correcting sentencing errors including scrivener's errors
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWillard pleaded guilty to dealing in stolen property and was ordered to pay $56,000 in restitution as part of his probation. He paid part but not all …
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 Restitution Award cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Paul Willard, appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion to correct sentencing error, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). Willard contends that the trial court erred by denying his request to correct the amount of the restitution award in the final judgment following revocation of probation. We agree.
Because a motion to correct a sentencing error involves a “purely legal issue,” an appellate court’s standard of review for such a motion is de novo. See T.L.S. v. State, 949 So.2d 290, 291 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (stating that the review of a juvenile’s motion to correct a sentencing error is conducted under the de novo standard of review).
“Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 allows a trial court to correct a sentencing error.” Bell v. State, 900 So.2d 776, 778 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). This includes a “scrivener’s error.” A scrivener’s error occurs when a trial court fails to state the correct amount of restitution still owed to a victim in a final judgment following revocation of probation. See Cherry v. State, 718 So.2d 294, 295 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).
In this case, the trial court erred by committing a scrivener’s error via its fail*865ure to state the correct amount of restitution still owed by Willard in the final judgment following Willard’s revocation of probation. It should have corrected this sentencing error via Willard’s rule 8.800 motion. Specifically, Willard, after pleading guilty to dealing in stolen property, was, as part of his probation, ordered to pay $56,000.00 in restitution. Willard paid part, but not all, of the restitution owed during his probationary period. Upon revoking Willard’s probation, the trial court should have stated the amount still owed in restitution in the final judgment following revocation of probation — not the original amount awarded.
We, therefore, reverse the trial court’s order denying Willard’s Rule 3.800(b)(2) Motion to Correct Sentence and remand with directions for the trial court to correct the final judgment following revocation of probation to state the proper amount of restitution still owed by Willard.
Reversed and Remanded With Directions.
HAZOURI, DAMOORGIAN and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Kittles v. State, 31 So. 3d 283 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…0 CF. Relying on the state’s response, the trial court summarily denied appellant’s motion, prompting this appeal. Because a motion to correct a sentencing error involves a pure issue of law, our standard of review is de novo. See Willard v. State, 22 So. 3d 864, 864 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) provides that “[a] court may at any time correct an illegal sentence imposed by it ... when it is affirmatively alleged that the court records demonstrate on their face an entitle…
-
Pitts v. State, 202 So. 3d 882 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…cretion to sentence him to a mandatory minimum term of less than life in prison under the 10/20/Life statute. We agree. The standard of review applicable to a trial court’s order on a motion to correct sentencing error is de novo. Willard v. State, 22 So. 3d 864, 864 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Resentencing is warranted where the defendant received a legal sentence, but the trial court misapprehended its sentencing discretion under the relevant statutes. See, e.g., Colletta v. State, 126 So. 3d 1090, 1091 (Fla. 4…
-
Terry v. State, 263 So. 3d 799 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)…ellant filed an initial brief in this Court asserting errors during the trial and the proceeding conducted on November 21, 2017. Appellate Analysis The standard of review for a motion to correct a sentencing error is de novo. Willard v. State, 22 So. 3d 864, 864 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). The standard of review regarding a trial court’s exercise of case jurisdiction while an appeal is pending is de novo. See Rogers v. State, 33 So. 3d 805, 806 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (applying de novo review regarding “whet…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- T.L.S. a Child v. State, 949 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- Deloris Cherry v. State, 718 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Bell v. State, 900 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)