Merritt v. State
Merritt v. State
593 So. 2d 623; 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 1687; 1992 WL 32783
(Southern Reporter, Second Series)
Merritt v. State
Opinion of the Court
We affirm appellant’s departure sentence. Barfield v. State, 594 So.2d 259 (Fla. 1992). However, we remand for correction of the judgment. The jury below found the appellant guilty of “petit theft,” but for some unexplained reason, the words “petit theft” on the face of the judgment have been crossed out and the word “robbery” written next to it. The state concedes that this was an improper alteration. On remand, the trial court is directed to correct that line so that it reads “petit theft”.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.