PAUL L. SAVINO, 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.
Paul Savino was convicted of lewd and lascivious molestation and battery. On appeal, he challenged the admission of an audio-taped police interrogation containing improper statements by the interrogating officer, but the court affirmed his convictions while remanding for correction of scrivener's errors in the judgment.
The court affirmed Mr. Savino's convictions because no fundamental error occurred with respect to the admission of the tape without objection. However, the court remanded for correction of scrivener's errors in the written judgment: removing the sexual battery conviction in favor of the battery conviction for which he was actually adjudicated guilty, and removing the $135 in court costs and fines that had been previously ordered stricken.
“While none of the issues raised in the appeal merit reversal, one deserves discussion.”
Indicates the court found one issue worthy of analysis despite affirming the convictions overall.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring a police interrogation, the interrogating officer repeatedly told Mr. Savino that the child victim was credible and that he believed Mr. Savino…
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 Scrivener'S Error cases and more on FLexlaw
[*903] PER CURIAM.
Paul L. Savino appeals his convictions for lewd and lascivious molestation and battery. While none of the issues raised in the appeal merit reversal, one deserves discussion.
Mr. Savino contends that the trial court committed fundamental error when extensive portions of his audio-taped statement to the police were admitted into evidence without objection. During the interview, the interrogating officer repeatedly told Mr. Savino that the child victim was credible and that he believed Mr. Savino was lying. The State concedes that many of the comments on the tape, had they been objected to, would have been properly excluded. However, the tape was admitted without objection, and we cannot conclude that the error was fundamental. If a remedy exists, the matter is best left to appropriate postconviction proceedings.
Accordingly, we affirm Mr. Savino’s convictions and sentences, but remand for correction of a scrivener’s error in the written judgment, which mistakenly reflects a conviction for sexual battery, while Mr. Savino was found and adjudicated guilty of the lesser included offense of battery. In addition, because the State concedes the written judgment contains a $135 court costs and fines that the trial court previously ordered stricken, we also remand for correction of this scrivener’s error. AFFIRMED; REMANDED for correction of scriveners’ errors.
ORFINGER, MONACO and LAWSON, JJ., concur.