KENNETH BALDWIN
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 scrivener's error claim regarding a sentencing order is not preserved for appellate review and must be raised via a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion in the trial court.
[1] A scrivener's error claim in a sentencing order must be raised via a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion in the trial court to be properly preserved for ap…
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 intelligence“We decline to reach the merits of Freeman's additional claim that the revocation order contains a scrivener's error because that claim is not preserved for our review and does not constitute fundamental error.”
Court citing Freeman v. State to support the procedural requirement for preserving scrivener's error claims
Kenneth Baldwin appealed from a trial court order denying his amended motion to correct sentence. The sentencing order allegedly contained a scrivener…
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 Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(B) cases and more on FLexlaw
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
Case No. 6D2024-1955 Lower Tribunal No. 1996-CF-316
KENNETH BALDWIN, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Charlotte County. Lisa Porter, Judge.
July 24, 2026
WOZNIAK, J.
We affirm the trial court's order denying Appellant's amended motion to correct sentence without prejudice to Appellant's filing a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion in the trial court to correct the scrivener's error mistakenly referencing the entry of a no contest plea to Count II. See Freeman v. State, 415 So. 3d 923, 923 (Fla. 6th DCA 2025) (“We decline to reach the merits of Freeman's additional claim that the revocation order contains a scrivener's error because that claim is not preserved for our review and does not constitute fundamental error." (citing Thomas v. State, 725 So. 2d 1148, 1149 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998))); Jones v. State, 413 So. 3d 839, 839-40 (Fla. 6th DCA 2024) (finding scrivener's error issue preserved because it was first raised via a rule 3.800(b) motion).
AFFIRMED without prejudice.
MIZE and GANNAM, JJ., concur.
Kenneth Baldwin, Bushnell, pro se.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Wendy Buffington, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and David Campbell, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.