HAROLD HUNT
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 denial of a Rule 3.800(a) motion may be affirmed even where the judgment contains scrivener's errors regarding felony classifications that must be corrected on remand.
[1] Scrivener's errors in a criminal judgment regarding felony classifications may be corrected on remand even where a Rule 3.800(a) motion is denied, and the defendant's pre…
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 intelligenceHarold Hunt was convicted of sexual battery upon a child and lewd and lascivious molestation. The trial court's judgment incorrectly classified these …
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 Capital Felony cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Barbara Duffy, Judge; L.T. Case No. 11-007506CF10A. Harold Hunt, Monticello, pro se. No appearance required by appellee. PER CURIAM.
Harold Hunt appeals the circuit court’s order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm without comment the court’s denial of the motion but remand for the court to correct scrivener’s errors.
Within its response filed in the circuit court, the State recognized that the judgment was incorrect. Appellant’s convictions for sexual battery upon a child are capital felonies, § 794.011(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2011), and his conviction for lewd and lascivious molestation is a life felony, § 800.04(5)(b), Fla. Stat. (2011). They are not first-degree felonies as presently set forth in the judgment.
Although we affirm the order denying appellant’s motion, we remand with directions that the scrivener’s errors be corrected. See Lucas v. State, 247 So. 3d 23, 24 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018); Sweeney v. State, 138 So. 3d 1095, 1095 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). Appellant’s presence is not required for these corrections. See Lucas, 247 So. 3d at 24 (citing Sweeney, 138 So. 3d at 1095).
Affirmed; remanded to correct scrivener’s errors in appellant’s judgment. MAY, CONNER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Sweeney v. State, 138 So. 3d 1095 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
- Lucas v. State, 247 So. 3d 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)