LABRANDON BODISON, 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 to correct a scrivener's error in the sentencing judgment where the written order failed to reflect the trial court's oral pronouncement that sentences should run concurrently.
A trial court's written judgment and sentence must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement of sentence when a scrivener's error exists, and such correction may be made without the defendant's presence.
[1] A written judgment and sentence containing a scrivener's error that contradicts the trial court's oral pronouncement must be corrected on appeal to conform to the oral pr…
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 intelligenceBodison was sentenced in case number 2012-CF-503, and the trial court orally pronounced that the sentence would run concurrently with sentences in cas…
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 Correction Of Sentencing Error cases and more on FLexlaw
In this Anders * appeal, appellant raises a scrivener’s error in his sentence. He notes that when the court orally pronounced his sentence in case number 2012-CF-50S, the court stated that sentence was to run concurrently with the sentences imposed in case number 2011-CF-622. However, in the written judgment and sentence, the court failed to place a check mark on the appropriate line indicating that the sentence in case number 2012-CF-503 was to run concurrently. Appellant preserved this issue by filing a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b). However, the trial court failed to rule on the motion within 60 days, and thus it was deemed denied. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(b)(1)(B). The State was given the opportunity to respond to this Anders appeal pursuant to Harrison v. State, 146 So.3d 76, 80-81 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014), and agrees that the error should be corrected.
We reverse and remand for the trial court to conform the written sentence to the oral pronouncement. See Knight v. State, 114 So.3d 1067 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). Appellant need not be present for the correction of this scrivener’s error. Appellant’s judgment and sentence are otherwise affirmed.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED with instructions.
LEWIS, C.J., WOLF, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Neville Laylor v. State, 197 So. 3d 650 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…uch a written order declaring appellant competent after his period of incompetence. We AFFIRM appellant’s judgment and sentence but REMAND for the trial court to enter a nunc pro tunc order declaring appellant competent. See Hunt [*651] er v. State, 174 So. 3d 1011, 1014-15 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). LEWIS and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.…
-
Cleveland v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Terone Harrison v. State, 146 So. 3d 76 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
- Knight v. State, 114 So. 3d 1067 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)