JERRY LEE JOHNSON AND WILLIAM EARL RYDER, APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Jerry Lee Johnson and William Earl Ryder were charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny and larceny of a firearm. They pleaded nolo contendere to the larceny charge and were placed on probation with adjudication of guilt withheld, but a clerical error in the formal orders misidentified which count they pleaded to. The court affirmed the trial judge's denial of their speedy trial motion and remanded to correct the formal orders.
The trial court correctly ruled on appellants' motions for discharge. The clerical discrepancy between the transcript and formal orders must be corrected by remanding the case to the trial court to enter amended orders reflecting the actual plea of nolo contendere to larceny of a firearm (Count Two).
[1] A plea of nolo contendere constitutes a waiver of certain constitutional rights.
[2] A discrepancy between the transcript of proceedings and a formal court order should be corrected by the trial court.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“In what appears to be obviously a scrivener's error, the formal orders withholding adjudication of guilt and placing appellants on probation provided that they both plead guilty to the offense of breaking and entering with the intent to commit a felony, to wit: larceny of a firearm, as charged in Count One of the information. However, as above recited, the transcript of the proceedings reflects that the defendants plead nolo contendere to larceny of a firearm as charged in Count Two of the information.”
Establishes the clerical error between the record of what actually transpired and the formal written orders
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants Johnson and Ryder filed a motion seeking discharge based on alleged violation of the speedy trial rule, which the trial court denied. On th…
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 Breaking And Entering With Intent To Commit A Felony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants were charged in the trial court with breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, to wit: larceny of a firearm, and with larceny of a firearm. They filed a motion seeking discharge, alleging a violation of the speedy trial rule, which motion was denied. On the same day the defendants appeared before the trial court and entered a plea of nolo con-tendere to the offense charged in the second count of the information, viz: larceny of a firearm. The learned trial judge, after interrogating appellants as to the voluntariness of their pleas and after advising them that their pleas constituted a waiver of certain constitutional rights, accepted the pleas of nolo contendere to the charge of larceny of a firearm, ordered that adjudication of guilt and imposition of sentence be withheld, and further ordered that both appellants be placed on probation for a period of three years. In what appears to be obviously a scrivener’s error, the formal orders withholding adjudication of guilt and placing appellants on probation provided that they both plead guilty to the offense of breaking and entering with the intent to commit a felony, to wit: larceny of a firearm, as charged in Count One of the information. However, as above recited, the transcript of the proceedings reflects that the defendants plead nolo contendere to larceny of a firearm as charged in Count Two of the information.
We find that the learned trial judge correctly ruled on appellants’ motions for discharge. (State ex rel. Butler v. Cullen, Sup.Ct. Fla. 1971, 253 So. 2d 861.) However, the discrepancy between the record and the formal order above mentioned should be corrected. This cause is therefore remanded to the trial court with directions that corrected orders be entered. It is not necessary that appellants be returned to the trial court for such purpose. Upon corrected orders being entered this cause shall stand
AFFIRMED.
BOYER, C. J., and RAWLS and Mc-CORD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Campbell v. State, 550 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…emand this case for correction of the judgment and sentence as they do not indicate whether appellant was tried and convicted, pled guilty, or pled nolo contendere. The trial court should correct this ministerial error upon remand. Johnson v. State, 321 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). LETTS, WARNER and GARRETT, JJ., concur.…
-
Ivy Warren v. State, 661 So. 2d 1318 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…. However, the order placing appellant on probation contains a clerical error in describing the offense as “aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer.” We remand the case to the trial court for entry of a corrected order. See Johnson v. State, 321 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). The appellant need not be present for such purpose, and upon entry of the corrected order this cause shall stand AFFIRMED. BOOTH, MINER and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.…
-
Berry v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)…0 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (remanding for correction of a scrivener’s error where the judgment and sentence indicate the appellant pleaded no contest to the charges, but the plea agreement and plea colloquy indicate he pleaded guilty); Johnson v. State, 321 So. 2d 119, 120 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) (remanding where the judgment reflected a plea of guilty instead of nolo contendere as reflected in the transcripts). Appellant need not be present for this ministerial correction to the judgment. See Wolk v. State, 320 So.…
Authorities Cited
- State of Fla. ex rel. Isaac Don Butler & Gerald Nickles v. Honorable Ralph O. Cullen, 253 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 1971)