PAUL ANTHONY CATALDO
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A trial court must correct clerical and factual errors in a sentencing order when the errors include stating a jury conviction as a guilty plea, including unsupported factual findings regarding evidence of prejudice, and mischaracterizing the probationary period imposed.
[1] A trial court may correct clerical and factual errors in a sentencing order on remand, including misidentifications of the mode of conviction, unsupported factual finding…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePaul Anthony Cataldo was convicted by jury of battery on a person 65 years of age or older. The written order of probation contained three errors: it …
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 Written Order Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Samantha Schosberg Feuer, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502015CF006127AXXXMB.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Benjamin Eisenberg, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kimberly T. Acuña, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
KUNTZ, J. Paul Anthony Cataldo appeals his conviction for battery on a person 65 years of age or older. We affirm without comment with one exception. Cataldo argues, and the State concedes, that the circuit court erred in denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct sentencing error.
Specifically, Cataldo argues there are three errors in the written order of probation:
1.) The order of probation incorrectly states that Cataldo entered a guilty plea when, in fact, he was convicted by jury;
2.) The order of probation refers to Cataldo’s conviction on count one as “EVIDENCE OF PREJUDICE WHILE COMMITTING BATTERY ON PERSON 65 YEARS OF AGE
2
OR OLDER” when, in fact, the jury did not find evidence of prejudice; and
3.) The order of probation indicates a probationary period of “3 YEARS, CONCURRENT WITH COUNTS 1,2 – FIRST 6 MONTHS OF PROBATION TO BE SERVED ON COMMUNITY CONTROL II WITH A MONITOR” when, in fact, the court ordered one year of probation for count two.
The State concedes that these three errors should be corrected. Thus, we affirm Cataldo’s conviction and sentence but remand for the court to correct the three errors in the order of probation. Cataldo need not be present for the court’s entry of the corrected order of probation. See Sirota v. State, 977 So. 2d 700, 701 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).
Affirmed and remanded for correction of order of probation. TAYLOR and CONNER, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
O.H. v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)
Authorities Cited
- Major Battle Mills v. State, 977 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)
- Kinchen v. McNEIL, 977 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)