JAMES W. BOGGS, PETITIONER,
v.
HONORABLE LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, DIRECTOR, FLORIDA DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, AND EX OFFICIO WARDEN, FLORIDA STATE PRISON, RAIFORD, FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 nunc pro tunc correction of a clerical error in a sentence, striking language that would have made it run concurrently, means the sentence is governed by the statute requiring consecutive service unless otherwise directed.
Petitioner was convicted of forgery and auto larceny. The auto larceny sentence included language suggesting it would run concurrently with the forger…
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 Nunc Pro Tunc Correction cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause is before us on petition for writ of mandamus in forma pauperis. We issued the alternative writ and have received respondent’s return.
Petitioner was convicted of forgery in Bay County and on October 12, 1967, was sentenced to two years in prison. Thereafter, on February 28, 1968, he was convicted of auto larceny in Bradford County and *317sentenced to eight months, said sentence providing “you James W. Boggs be confined therein [Raiford Prison] for a period of eight (8) months, from the date of your delivery thereto.” (e. s.) Petitioner contends that the italicized language makes the Bradford County sentence run concurrently with the prior Bay County sentence.
Respondent in his return informs us that on April 24, 1969, the sentencing judge entered his order nunc pro tunc, correcting the clerical error in the minute entry so as to strike the language “from the date of your delivery thereto.” In his order the judge states that he did not use the stricken language in sentencing petitioner, but that it was mistakenly added by the clerk.
In R. R. Ricou & Sons Co. v. Merwin, 94 Fla. 86, 87, 113 So. 745, 746 (1927) this Court stated:
“That a court of record may, even after the term has expired, correct clerical mistakes in its own judgments and records, nunc pro tunc, and that such corrections generally relate back and take effect as of the date of the judgment, decree, order, writ, or other record so corrected, is well settled.”
The corrected record of petitioner’s eight-months sentence is silent as to when the eight-month sentence should begin to run and is thus controlled by the following provision of Florida Statute § 921.16, F.S.A.:
“ * * * Sentences of imprisonment for offenses not charged in the same indictment or information shall be served consecutively unless the court expressly directs that they or some of them be served concurrently.”
Accordingly the alternative writ is discharged and the petition dismissed.
It is so ordered.
ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW and ADKINS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (24 total)
-
Carson v. State, 489 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…d DCA 1978). A court may correct clerical mistakes in its own judgments and records, nunc pro tunc, even after the term of court has expired, and such corrections generally relate back and take effect as of the date of judgment. Boggs v. Wainwrigkt, 223 So. 2d 316 (Fla.1969); Perry. The trial court orally sentenced appellant to thirty months incarceration, “with credit for time served.” It therefore did not err in correcting the clerical error that caused this credit to be reflected as 546 days. When a priso…
-
Luhrs v. State, 394 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…er time but not properly entered. Dunkle v. State, 98 Fla. 985, 124 So. 725 (1929). A nunc pro tunc order is also used to supply an omission in the record of an action previously done but omitted through inadvertence or mistake. Boggs v. Wainwright, 223 So. 2d 316 (Fla.1969); Applestein v. Alberring, 291 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). In Becker v. King, 307 So. 2d 855, 859 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), the court said: Nunc pro tunc means ‘now for then’ and when applied to the entry of a legal order or judgment it no…
-
Wells v. State, 796 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…iminal record. Although the Rules of Criminal Procedure do not include a rule authorizing the correction of errors in judgments, as noted by the fifth district in Luhrs v. State, 394 So. 2d 137, 139 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), in Boggs v. Wainwright, 223 So. 2d 316 (Fla.1969), the supreme court effectively “adopted the rule concerning correction' of errors after term from a civil case.” Luhrs, 394 So. 2d at 139 n. 1. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(a) provides: Clerical Mistakes. Clerical mistakes in ju…
Previewing 3 of 24 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ricou v. Merwin, 94 Fla. 86 (Fla. 1927)