TABITHA HUGHBANKS, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed probation revocation and 30-month sentence for dealing in stolen property, but remanded to correct a scrivener's error in the revocation order that incorrectly referenced a dismissed grand theft charge.
A probation revocation and resulting sentence may be affirmed even where the revocation order contains a scrivener's error that must be corrected on remand.
Tabitha Hughbanks was charged with dealing in stolen property and grand theft of a motor vehicle; she pleaded guilty to dealing in stolen property, th…
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 Sentencing Factors cases and more on FLexlaw
Tabitha Hughbanks appeals an order revoking her probation and a resulting judgment sentencing her to thirty months in prison for dealing in stolen property. She admits violating the conditions of her probation but asserts that those violations did not justify revoking probation and that the trial court considered impermissible factors in imposing sentence. We affirm the revocation and sentence without comment and write only to correct a scrivener’s error identified by Ms. Hughbanks and apparent on the face of the order of revocation.
On September 4, 2013, Ms. Hughbanks was charged with one count of dealing in stolen property and one count of grand *621theft of a motor vehicle. She pleaded guilty to dealing in stolen property and was placed on probation; the grand theft charge was dismissed. Following the revocation of probation, the trial court entered a written judgment and sentence and an order of revocation of probation, both of which included the dismissed charge. Ms. Hughbanks filed a motion to correct her sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b), and an amended judgment and sentence noting the dismissal was entered. The order of revocation, however, still identifies the grand theft charge as one to which Ms. Hughbanks pleaded. We therefore remand for the limited purpose of correcting the order of revocation to reflect that Ms. Hughbanks pleaded guilty only to the charge of dealing in stolen property. See Margolis v. State, 148 So.3d 532, 532 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).
Affirmed; remanded with instructions.
NORTHCUTT and BLACK, JJ„ Concur.