DEANTE JOHNSON, 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 convictions for kidnapping and battery but remanded to correct a scrivener's error on the written sentencing form that inconsistently marked both habitual felony offender and prison releasee reoffender boxes when only the latter applied.
A scrivener's error on a written sentencing form must be corrected when it conflicts with the trial court's oral pronouncement of sentence.
[1] A scrivener's error on a written sentencing form that marks boxes inconsistent with the trial court's oral pronouncement must be corrected, as the oral pronouncement cont…
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 intelligenceDeante Johnson was convicted of kidnapping and battery. The trial court orally pronounced that Johnson was a prison releasee reoffender for sentencing…
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 Prison Releasee Reoffender Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
Deante Johnson appeals his judgments and sentences for kidnapping and battery. We affirm in all respects except for the written sentence for kidnapping, which we remand for correction of a scrivener’s error.
Although the trial court orally pronounced that it found Mr. Johnson to be a habitual felony offender and a prison re-leasee reoffender, it explained that Mr. Johnson was to be sentenced only as a prison releasee reoffender with respect to his sentence on count two, i.e, the sentence of life imprisonment for kidnapping. However, on the written sentence form for what appears to be special provisions applicable to the sentence on count two, the boxes for habitual felony offender sentencing and prison releasee reoffender sentencing were both marked with an “X.” On this form, it is clear that the habitual felony offender box is to be marked only when a defendant is both adjudicated to be a habitual felony offender and sentenced as a habitual felony offender. - The State admits that the written sentence is inconsistent with the, oral pronouncement. Accordingly, we remand with directions that this scrivener’s error be corrected.
Affirmed; remanded to correct scrivener’s error.
ALTENBERND, KELLY, and LaROSE, JJ, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Turk v. Turk, 189 So. 3d 359 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…school. We agree with the father’s interpretation of the agreement, and because a person cannot be held in contempt for failure to comply with something that a judicial order does not say, we reverse. See Stusch v. Jiruska, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D129, 188 So. 3d 874, 2016 WL 64796 (Fla. 4th DCA Jan. 6, 2016) (“‘[A] jqdge cannot base contempt upon noncompliance with something an order does not say.’ ” (quoting Keitel v. Keitel, 716 So. 2d 842, 845 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (Farmer, J., concurring))). Reversed. WARNE…
-
Agustin Raton v. Brydie K. Wallace, 207 So. 3d 978 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…fe was complying with the intent of the MSA by continuing to take the children for counseling. Thus, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Former Husband’s motion to hold Former Wife in contempt. See Stusch v. Jiruska, 188 So. 3d 874, 878 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016); Bertuglia v. Roe, 42 So. 3d 285, 285 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). AFFIRMED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART. SAWAYA, BERGER, and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.…