MICHAEL PHILLIP FUSCO
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 conviction and sentence for sexual battery are affirmed, but the case is remanded to correct a clerical error in the sexual offender order to cite the proper statute.
[1] Clerical errors in sentencing orders, including improper statutory references and unauthorized unpronounced assessments, may be corrected pursuant to Florida Rule of Crim…
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 intelligenceMichael Phillip Fusco was convicted of sexual battery under section 794.011(5)(b), Florida Statutes. During the appeal, Fusco moved to correct sentenc…
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 Anders Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this Anders1 appeal, Michael Phillip Fusco seeks review of his judgment and sentence on the charge of sexual battery under section 794.011(5)(b), Florida Statutes (2019). We affirm in all respects but remand to the trial court for correction of a clerical error in one of the sentencing orders.
During the pendency of this appeal, Fusco moved to correct parts of three sentencing orders pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). Specifically, Fusco requested that the trial court correct the reference to the improper statute in the sentencing order finding him a sexual offender, as it mistakenly implicated sexual predator status. He also asked the trial court to strike an array of unauthorized, unpronounced monetary assessments as well as unpronounced special conditions in the orders for costs and sex offender probation.
The trial court granted Fusco’s motion and directed the clerk of court and office of probation to prepare amended costs and probation orders. The trial court also stated that it would prepare an amended order finding Fusco a sexual offender under the proper statute. Accordingly, amended orders for costs and probation were entered, but it does not appear the trial court entered an amended order finding Fusco a sexual offender. Therefore, we