Thomas v. State
Cases that cite this one
19 later published cases cite this decision.
- Jelks v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)
- Parris v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)
- Everette Slocum v. State of Florida (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2025)
- Anthony Frazier v. The State of Florida (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2024)
- Johnny Simmons v. The State of Florida (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2024)
- MARK BUCHER v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2023)
- Troy Curry-Pennamon v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections (11th Cir. 2022)
- RAFAEL A. CARRION v. STATE OF FLORIDA (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2022)
- Genovese v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)
- Sheena Latson v. State of Florida (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)
- Evett v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)
- Denson v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)
- Jones v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)
- Blake v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)
- Castor v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)
- Ballester v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)
- Gammon v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)
- Smith v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)
- Charles v. State (Fla. 2000)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Tommy THOMAS, Petitioner,
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.
Supreme Court of Florida.
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Robert D. Rosen, Assistant Public Defender, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Bartow, Florida, for Petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Robert J. Krauss, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Chief of Criminal Law, and William I. Munsey, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, Florida, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Thomas v. State, 725 So.2d 1148 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), on the basis of direct and express conflict. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We recently resolved this conflict in Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89 (Fla. 2000). Thomas contends that fundamental error occurred when the trial court orally found that he had violated one condition of his probation, but the written order revoking probation stated that he had violated an additional seven conditions of probation. The district court characterized this as a "scrivener's error" that did not constitute fundamental error correctable on direct appeal absent preservation. See Thomas, 725 So.2d at 1148.[1] We concluded in Maddox that although this is a patent error, because the error has no quantitative effect on the sentence, it is not so serious that it should be corrected on appeal as fundamental error. 760 So.2d at 99. We therefore approve the decision of the Second District.
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
NOTES
[1] It is clear that the defendant or the State may seek to correct a scrivener's error by filing a motion to correct sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b). See Amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.111(e) & 3.800 & Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.020(h), 9.140, & 9.600, 761 So.2d 1015 (Fla. 1999), reh'g granted, 761 So.2d at 1025. In this case, the error was not preserved for appellate review.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.