MICHAEL W. PALMER
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 may correct a clerical error in a judgment to conform it to the jury's verdict, and such correction may be made at any time, even after the court's term has expired.
[1] A trial court possesses inherent power to correct clerical errors in its judgments and records at any time, even after expiration of the court's term, by means of a nunc…
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 intelligence“It is axiomatic that a judgment should conform to the verdict of the jury.”
Court's statement of the governing legal principle regarding judgment conformity to verdicts.
In 1997, Palmer was convicted of first-degree murder after a jury trial where the jury was instructed it could find guilt under either premeditation o…
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 Nunc Pro Tunc Order cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
MICHAEL W. PALMER,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D19-3030
STATE OF FLORIDA, CORRECTED
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed June 5, 2020
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Seminole County, Jessica J. Recksiedler, Judge.
Michael W. Palmer, Miami, pro se.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carmen F. Corrente, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
EVANDER, C.J.
Michael Palmer appeals the summary dismissal of his motion to correct a clerical error in his judgment and sentencing documents. Because the record establishes that Palmer was entitled to the requested relief, we reverse. In 1997, Palmer was convicted, after trial, of first-degree murder and shooting into an occupied dwelling. The trial transcript reflects that the jury was instructed that the
In his motion, Palmer recited that he intends to apply to the Florida Office of Executive Clemency for a commutation of sentence. See generally § 940.01, Fla. Stat. (2019). He further argues that the judgment, which will be submitted as part of his application, should accurately reflect the nature of his conviction. We find merit to Palmer’s argument.
It is axiomatic that a judgment should conform to the verdict of the jury. Wolfram v. State, 568 So. 2d 992, 995 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); see also Hicks v. State, 411 So. 2d 1025, 1026 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Thrift v. State, 295 So. 2d 690, 691 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974).
Furthermore, a trial court may, at any time, correct clerical errors in its judgments. See Rodgers v. State, 934 So. 2d 1207, 1221 (Fla. 2006) (stating that it would not be accurate for jury in new penalty phase to consider written final judgment which reflects that Rodgers pled guilty to attempted felony murder in prior case where it was clear that Rodgers pled guilty to attempted first-degree premeditated murder with firearm; error to be corrected by sentencing court in prior case before written judgment of conviction is admitted in new penalty phase in current case; affirming holding in Boggs that court of record may, even after term has expired, correct clerical mistakes in its own judgments and records); Boggs v. Wainwright, 223 So. 2d 316, 317 (Fla. 1969) (holding that court of record may, even after expiration of term, correct clerical errors in its judgments and
1 The evidence was sufficient to support a conviction under either theory.
On remand, the trial court shall correct the clerical error in the judgment, so as to recite that Palmer was convicted of first-degree murder.2
REVERSED and REMANDED, with instructions.
LAMBERT and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.
2 It is not necessary for us to address whether the correction of this clerical error will have a meaningful effect on the Florida Office of Executive Clemency’s ultimate decision.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hutchins v. McCLUNG, 572 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Boggs v. Honorable Louie L. Wainwright, 223 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 1969)
- Norris v. Treadwell, 934 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 2006)
- Hicks v. State, 411 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Wolfram v. State, 568 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Huey W. Thrift v. State, 295 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)