STEVEN LOPEZ BALDWIN, 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.
The court reversed and remanded count II to correct a scrivener's error in the written judgment, which incorrectly reflected conviction for aggravated battery with great bodily harm instead of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon as orally pronounced at trial.
A scrivener's error in the written judgment must be corrected to reflect the trial court's oral pronouncement of guilt for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon rather than aggravated battery with great bodily harm.
[1] A scrivener's error in a written judgment that contradicts the trial court's oral pronouncement of conviction must be corrected on remand to conform the written judgment…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was tried and the jury found him guilty of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and aggravated assault with a firearm. The trial court or…
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 Great Bodily Harm cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant appeals his convictions for count II, aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, and count IV, aggravated assault with a firearm. Appellant raises three issues on appeal, only one of which merits discussion. Appellant asserts that the amended judgment and sentence improperly reflects that he was convicted in count II of aggravated battery with great bodily harm, a first-degree felony. Following trial, the jury found Appellant guilty of the offense of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and the trial court correctly, orally pronounced Appellant guilty of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, a second-degree felony. However, there is a scrivener’s error in the written judgment and sentence reflecting that Appellant was adjudicated guilty and sentenced for the offense of aggravated battery with great bodily harm. Therefore, we reverse and remand the case as to count II only for the trial court to enter a corrected judgment and sentence consistent with its oral pronouncement reflecting that Appellant was adjudicated guilty of the offense of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. We otherwise affirm Appellant’s judgments and sentences.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED with instructions.
PADOVANO, LEWIS, and CLARK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Leondray Kirkland v. State, 106 So. 3d 4 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…fender fee. See Vaughn v. State, 65 So. 3d 138, 139 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Finally, as the trial court did not impose a fine, pursuant to section 938.06(1), Fla. Stat (2009), the $20 imposition of court costs must be stricken.* See Clavelle v. State, 80 So. 3d 456, 457 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); see also Pullam v. State, 55 So. 3d 674, 675 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and sentence, but remand for correction of the sentencing errors. We note that if the trial court determines it will not…
-
Laronald D. Spear v. State, 109 So. 3d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…t was error to impose the $20 cost where no fine was imposed or where a fine was wrongfully imposed. See, e.g., Harris v. State, 100 So. 3d 245, 246 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Chamblee v. State, 93 So. 3d 1184, 1186 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Clavelle v. State, 80 So. 3d 456, 457 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Mallory v. State, 70 So. 3d 738, 738 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Pullam v. State, 55 So. 3d 674, 675 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Lang v. State, 856 So. 2d 1105, 1106 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). The Legislature amended section 938.06(1) effect…
-
Derrell J. Chamblee v. State, 93 So. 3d 1184 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…186] prevention was $200.00 for a felony. § 938.05(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2003). -We therefore strike the assessment of $225.00 and direct the trial court to substitute a $200.00 court cost under the applicable version of the statute. Clavelle v. State, 80 So. 3d 456 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Swift v. State, 53 So. 3d 394 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (reducing assessment to the amount permitted under the version of section 938.05(1)(a) in effect at the time of the offenses). The law in March 2003 allowed the imposition of a $…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence