STEVEN ALLEN BLAIR, APPELLANT,
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.
Florida appellate court reversed and remanded for corrected judgment where defendant pleaded nolo contendere to armed robbery and attempted armed robbery but the information charged only robbery and attempted robbery without any weapon allegation, though sentences imposed were lawful and within the plea bargain.
A judgment of conviction must be corrected to reflect the actual offenses charged in the information, even though the sentences imposed were lawful and within the parameters of the plea bargain.
[1] A judgment of conviction must be corrected to reflect the offenses actually charged in the information rather than the labels applied to the conviction, even when the sen…
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 intelligenceBlair pleaded nolo contendere to charges labeled as armed robbery and attempted armed robbery, but the information contained no allegation that he use…
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 Review cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, Acting Chief Judge.
Blair appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentences entered on negotiated pleas of nolo contendere. The appeal has proceeded in accordance with the principles of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Although the convictions are for “armed robbery” and “attempted armed robbery”, the information to which Blair pleaded made no charge that Blair used a firearm, deadly weapon, or other weapon in perpetrating the offenses. While the judgment must therefore be corrected to reflect the offenses charged, Blair was not misled in his understanding of the maximum imprisonment to which his pleas subjected him. He was correctly advised that robbery is punishable by imprisonment for a term not exceeding fifteen years. Sections 812.-13(2)(c), 775.082(3)(c), Florida Statutes (1977). The plea bargain contemplated that Blair would “receive no more than a fifteen-year sentence to serve ten and have five on probation . . . .” The sentences of ten years for robbery and five years for attempted robbery, to run concurrently, were within the parameters of both the bargain and the statutes.
The judgment is REVERSED and the case is remanded for entry of a corrected judgment imposing the same sentences. Appellant need not be present for entry of the corrected judgment.
MELVIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Blair v. State, 368 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…PER CURIAM. The record in this court from appellant’s previous appeal, Blair v. State, 362 So. 2d 411 (Fla.1st DCA 1978), clearly demonstrates that there is no merit to the allegations contained in appellant’s Rule 3.850 motion. The order denying appellant’s motion without evidentiary hearing is accordingly affirmed. McCORD, C. J., and ERVIN and BO…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)