History
  • No items yet
midpage
Brister v. State
562 So. 2d 452
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
1990
Check Treatment
DANIEL, Chief Judge.

Appellant seeks correction of a scrivener’s error existing in the probation order entered after the oral pronouncement of the sentence by the trial court. Following a plea of nolo contendere to two counts of grand theft, the appellant was sentenced to 2 years incarceration followed by 2 years probation on one count and 2 years probation on the other count.

The probation order prepared following the oral pronouncement of the sentence indicated that appellant was to be committed to the Department of Corrections for a term of 4V2 years instead of the 4 years pronounced by the court.1 The state concedes this scrivener’s error.

Accordingly, the probation order in Circuit Court Case No. 89-3441 is modified to show that the total of the probationary *453split sentence is 4 years rather than 4¾⅛ years. Cf. Nobile v. State, 542 So.2d 1066 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Wynn v. State, 394 So.2d 225 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).

As corrected, the judgment and sentence and probation orders are affirmed.

DAUKSCH and COWART, JJ., concur.

. The probation order erroneously suggests that the appellant received a "true split sentence" rather than a “probationary split sentence.” See Poore v. State, 531 So.2d 161 (Fla.1988).

Case Details

Case Name: Brister v. State
Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida
Date Published: Jun 28, 1990
Citation: 562 So. 2d 452
Docket Number: No. 89-1828
Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.