KING
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.
A trial court's scrivener's error in retaining a DSFO designation in a written sentence after ordering its removal must be corrected on remand.
[1] A scrivener's error in a sentencing document that retains a designation the trial court has ordered removed may be corrected on remand without requiring the defendant to…
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 intelligenceKing was convicted on three counts and initially sentenced with DSFO designations on all counts. The trial court later amended the sentence on count t…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.800(B)(2) Motion To Correct Sentencing Error cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
DELMONT KING,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
No. 2D2022-3693
September 26, 2025
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Samantha Lee Ward, Judge.
Blair Allen, Public Defender, and Maura J. Kiefer, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Alicia M. Winterkorn, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
We affirm Delmont King's judgment and the related term-of-year sentences. However, we remand for the trial court to strike King's designation as a Dangerous Sexual Felony Offender (DSFO) on count two. The trial court originally imposed enhanced sentences as a DSFO on all three of King's convictions under section 794.0115, Florida
2
Statutes (2021). It later amended the sentence on count three to remove the DSFO designation. King filed a motion to correct sentencing error under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), attacking the DSFO designation and enhancement on counts one and two. The trial court denied the motion. King then filed a second rule 3.800(b)(2) motion raising another basis to remove the DSFO designation and sentencing enhancement from count two. The trial court granted this second motion, ordering that King was "entitled to resentencing on count two of the instant case without the Dangerous Sexual Offender designation." However, the trial court did not fully follow through with its ruling when drafting the second amended sentence. This version reduced the sentence imposed on count two to a non-DSFO sentence, but it mistakenly retained the language "DEFENDANT IS A DANGEROUS SEXUAL FELONY OFFENDER" on that count. The State concedes that the trial court committed a scrivener's error when it failed to remove the DSFO designation from count two. Moreover, the State does not challenge the merits of the trial court's intended ruling.1 Consequently, we remand for the trial court to strike the DSFO designation from count two of King's sentence. Affirmed; remanded with instructions.
3
BLACK and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.