LEO LEE ARENA, 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.
The court held that a sentence can be corrected by referring to the record to specify the crime for which the defendant was convicted, even if the sentence itself omits the crime's name.
Appellant was convicted of burglary of a dwelling and sentenced to fifteen years. He argued the sentence was excessive as burglary is a third-degree f…
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 Correction Of Sentencing Error cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was charged with and convicted of burglary of a dwelling. The trial court adjudicated appellant guilty of burglary and sentenced him to fifteen years. After eight years in prison he was to be placed on probation for five years.
Appellant contends that the sentence imposed is excessive because he was adjudicated guilty of burglary, a third degree felony which carries a maximum sentence of five years. On the other hand, the state contends the case is controlled by Ham brick v. State, 80 Fla. 672, 86 So. 623 (Fla.1920), and Russo v. State, 340 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). In Russo, this court, quoting from Hambrick, supra, said:
When the record in a criminal case shows fully the crime for which the prisoner was indicted and all the proceedings thereon, through trial and verdict up to conviction and sentence, the failure in the sentence to name the crime for which the prisoner is sentenced may be supplied by reference to the rest of the record. 340 So. 2d at 1273.
The rule is clear that the oversight in failing to properly name the crime in the sentence can be supplied by reference to the record. Resort to the record in this case demonstrates that appellant was charged and convicted of burglary of a dwelling, a second degree felony carrying a maximum penalty of fifteen years. Thus, the sentence in question is within the limits provided by statute.
We could simply affirm this case without further comment; however, as a matter of housekeeping and to clarify the record we deem it expedient to remand the case to the trial court to modify the judgment and sentence to show that appellant was adjudicated guilty of burglary of a dwelling and, as so modified, the judgment and sentence are affirmed. It shall not be necessary for appellant to be present for such modification of the judgment.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED AND REMANDED with directions.
DOWNEY, C. J., and LETTS and HERSEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. State, 584 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…ount, concurrent. The burglary counts are second degree felonies, section 810.02(3), Florida Statutes (1987), and the sentence imposed on these burglary counts falls within the statutory maximum incarceration period of fifteen years. Arena v. State, 382 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). However, the two grand theft counts are third degree felonies, section 812.014, Florida Statutes (1987), as amended by Supp. (1988), which have a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment. Atkinson v. State, 457 So. 2d 1063 (F…
Authorities Cited
- Hambrick v. State, 80 Fla. 672 (Fla. 1920)
- Russo v. State, 340 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)