MINOR CATLEDGE
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 trial court's judgment and sentences are affirmed, but the case is remanded to correct a scrivener's error in the judgment and probation order that misidentified the charge in count one.
[1] A scrivener's error in a judgment and probation order that misidentifies the charge to which a defendant pled guilty requires remand for correction, even where the senten…
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 intelligenceMinor Catledge entered into a negotiated plea of no contest and was sentenced by the trial court. The judgment and probation order erroneously identif…
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 Costs Of Prosecution cases and more on FLexlaw
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 5D2023-3020 LT Case No. 2022-CF-001596 _____________________________
MINOR CATLEDGE,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee. _____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Clay County. Steven B. Whittington, Judge.
Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Edward J. Weiss, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
July 12, 2024
PER CURIAM.
In this Anders1 appeal, Appellant, Minor Catledge, seeks review of the judgment and sentences imposed by the trial court pursuant to a negotiated plea of no contest. We affirm Catledge’s judgment and sentences without further comment. See § 775.082,
Nevertheless, we must remand for correction of a scrivener’s error. The judgment and order of probation erroneously indicate that the charge in count one was for burglary of an occupied dwelling while unarmed, a second-degree felony. See § 810.02(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2022). However, pursuant to the negotiated plea, Catledge pled guilty to burglary of a structure, a third-degree felony, in count one. See § 810.02(4)(a).2 On remand, the trial court shall enter a third amended judgment and sentence and a third amended order of probation reflecting the correct charge in count one.
AFFIRMED; REMANDED with instructions.
MAKAR, KILBANE, and PRATT, JJ., concur.
2 We recognize that the trial court entered an order directing the clerk of the court to enter a second amended judgment and sentence and a second amended order of probation with the intent of correcting this scrivener’s error. However, the charge in count one remains misidentified in both documents.
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- O'Malley v. State, 378 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024)