CHRISTOPHER JUNIOR PIERRE
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 failure to include an orally pronounced sentence in the written judgment constitutes a scrivener's error requiring remand for amendment, and the defendant's presence is not required for this ministerial correction.
[1] When a trial court's oral pronouncement of sentence is not reflected in the written judgment, the omission constitutes a scrivener's error remediable by amended judgment…
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“However, the written judgment, while accurately reflecting Pierre's adjudication of guilt on count three, inadvertently failed to include the actual sentence imposed.”
Description of the scrivener's error in the judgment
Christopher Junior Pierre was convicted of, among other things, discharging a firearm in public. The trial court orally pronounced a sentence of one y…
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 Written Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this Anders1 appeal, we affirm the judgment and sentences imposed by the trial court after trial but find it necessary to remand to correct a scrivener’s error in the judgment.
Pierre was convicted of, among other things, discharging a firearm in public (count three). The trial court orally pronounced Pierre’s sentence on this count to be “one year in the Orange County Jail with credit for 30 days time served.” The court also ordered that this sentence be served concurrently with the lengthier prison sentences that it had just imposed on Pierre on counts one and two.
However, the written judgment, while accurately reflecting Pierre’s adjudication of guilt on count three, inadvertently failed to include the actual sentence imposed. Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to enter an amended judgment that includes the sentence that it imposed on Pierre for count three. Pierre’s presence is not required for this ministerial correction. See Walker v. State, 288 So. 3d 694, 696 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). AFFIRMED; REMANDED for entry of amended judgment to correct scrivener’s error.
LAMBERT, C.J., HARRIS and TRAVER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Metellus v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)…g Appellant’s rule 3.800(b) motion to delete the imposition of payment for urinalysis by Appellant. Because the correction of Appellant’s probation order is a ministerial act, neither resentencing nor his presence is required. See Walker v. State, 288 So. 3d 694, 696 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). We further agree with Appellant’s argument that the written imposition of the condition that he pay for drug testing must be deleted because it does not comport with the oral sentence announced. Williams v. State, 957 So.…
-
Pierre v. State, 288 So. 3d 694 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022)…sentence imposed. Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to enter an amended judgment that includes the sentence that it imposed on Pierre for count three. Pierre’s presence is not required for this ministerial correction. See Walker v. State, 288 So. 3d 694, 696 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). AFFIRMED; REMANDED for entry of amended judgment to correct scrivener’s error. LAMBERT, C.J., HARRIS and TRAVER, JJ., concur. 1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).…
-
Koas Born Free v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)…written order on the defendant’s competency, 3 the appellate court must remand the case to the trial court for it to enter that order nunc pro tunc.” Id. (citing Machin v. State, 267 So. 3d 1098, 1101 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) and Torres v. State, 288 So. 3d 694, 694 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)). In Torres, this court affirmed the convictions and sentences of the defendant and remanded “solely for the trial court to enter a nunc pro tunc order memorializing its competency finding.” 288 So. 3d at 694. Her…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Pierre v. State, 288 So. 3d 694 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022)