Howard v. State
Howard v. State
128 So. 3d 929; 2013 WL 6696113; 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 20244
(Southern Reporter, Third Series)
Howard v. State
Opinion of the Court
We affirm Appellant’s convictions and sentences. However, due to an apparent scrivener’s error, the written sentence is ambiguous as to the intended sentence structure. Given the oral pronouncement of concurrent twenty-year terms for the two counts of which Appellant was convicted, the court’s intent is clear from a review of the entire record. We, therefore, remand this case for correction of the written sentence to conform to the oral pronouncement. See Bryant v. State, 124 So.3d 256 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). Appellant need not be present for the correction of this clerical error. Id.
AFFIRMED and REMANDED.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.