ALAN DALE OWENS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 judgment must be corrected to conform to the jury's verdict, but not in the specific manner the defendant sought.
The defendant sought to correct a judgment and sentence, claiming it should state he was guilty of robbery with a weapon instead of robbery while carr…
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 Motion To Correct Illegal Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
The Defendant, Alan Dale Owens, seeks review of an order denying his motion for postconviction relief and/or motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Rule 3.850 and/or Rule 3.800(a), Fla. R.Crim. P. For the reasons stated below, we conclude Defendant is not entitled to relief but we remand for the trial court to correct the judgment.
The Defendant filed a motion to clarify judgment on September 11, 2003, claiming that the judgment and sentence should be corrected because it allegedly states he was adjudged guilty of robbery while carrying a deadly weapon when it should state that he was guilty of robbery with a weapon. We disagree.
The verdict provided by the Defendant in the appendix1 shows that he was found guilty in count one of robbery while carrying a deadly weapon and guilty in count two of unlawful possession of a firearm while engaged in robbery.2 The judgment, however, states he was convicted of “robbery, etc.” and failed to include the fact that he was found guilty of robbery with a deadly weapon. When the judgment does not correspond to the verdict, the remedy is to remand so that the judgment can be corrected to reflect the verdict. Moore v. State, 561 So.2d 1273, 1275 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Paulk v. State, 376 So.2d 1213 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
Defendant is correct that the judgment and sentence on count one should be corrected to conform to the verdict. However, the correction required is not the one sought by Defendant. The judgment should be corrected from “robbery, etc.” to robbery with a deadly weapon.
Remanded with instructions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Saviory v. State, 348 So. 3d 1206 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022)
-
Demarious T. Caldwell v. State, 160 So. 3d 110 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…s Caldwell appeals an order striking his rule 3.850 motion as untimely filed. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed with a citation to a case pending review in the Florida Supreme Court, and Caldwell sought discretionary review. Caldwell v. State, 86 So. 3d 1160 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). The time for filing a rule 3.850 motion was tolled until the Florida Supreme Court dismissed review of the direct appeal proceedings. Mullins v. State, 974 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). The state concedes that Caldwell’s postc…
-
Herrera v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Paulk v. State, 376 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Moore v. State, 561 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)