ROY BETTS, A/K/A ROY NEIL BETTS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Written Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
Roy Neil Betts appeals the postconviction court’s order denying his motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm in all respects; however, we remand for correction of a scrivener’s error in Betts’ written sentence.
The transcript of the sentencing hearing reflects that the trial court orally imposed a twenty-five year minimum mandatory sentence pursuant to section 775.087, Florida Statutes (2006). However, the written sentence indicates the minimum mandatory was not orally pronounced. This error in the written sentence is not the result of a judicial determination but rather is a scrivener’s error in the written document. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800 court cmt. (defining a scrivener’s error as “a mistake in the written sentence that is at variance with the oral pronouncement of sentence or the record but not ... the result of a judicial determination or error”). Accordingly, we remand with directions that this scrivener’s error be corrected.
Affirmed; remanded to correct scrivener’s error.-
KHOUZAM and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ortiz v. Ortiz, 227 So. 3d 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…ez, 100 So. 3d 769, 771 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). And “if the trial court determines that there is an entitlement to fees, the court must ‘set forth findings regarding the factors that justify the specific amount awarded.’” Id.; Rowe v. Rodriguez-Schmidt, 128 So. 3d 158, 159 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). The absence of factual findings in this record as to the parties’ need' and ability to pay, and reasonableness of fees makes it impossible for us to review the propriety of the trial court’s award of fees. Therefore, we rem…
-
Sweeney v. State, 138 So. 3d 1095 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…correct the error. Insofar as this is an instance of a scrivener’s error in appellant’s sentence, rather than a judicial determination or error, we affirm the trial court’s order denying the motion to correct illegal sentence. See Betts v. State, 128 So. 3d 158 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). However, we also remand with directions that the error be corrected in appellant’s sentence. Appellant’s presence is not required for this correction. Williams v. State, 697 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Affirm; remand to c…
-
Walker v. State, 137 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…’s error as “ ‘a mistake in the written sentence that is at variance with the oral pronouncement of sentence or the record but not those errors that are the result of a judicial determination or error’ ” (citation omitted)); see also Betts v. State, 128 So. 3d 158, 158 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). Additionally, the sentences on counts three and four are not illegal because they are true split sentences. See Powers v. State, 51 So. 3d 514, 515 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (characterizing the suspended portion of a true split sen…