Lamb v. State

Full title: BRADLEY LAMB, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

Court: FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA

Date published: Feb 25, 2021

312 So. 3d 205 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2021)

Opinion

No. 1D20-2630

02-25-2021

Bradley LAMB, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Bradley Lamb, pro se, Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Bryan Jordan, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Bradley Lamb, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Bryan Jordan, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED . We affirm the trial court's ruling, but remand for correction of a scrivener's error contained in Appellant's order of probation. See Boggs v. Wainwright , 223 So. 2d 316, 317 (Fla. 1969). The order erroneously vacates Appellant's probation for count XXIV and, instead, imposes it across counts I, II, III and XXIII, which would impermissibly cause these sentences to exceed the statutory maximum. However, the hearing transcripts clearly indicate that the trial court intended to only remove the sex offender designation while keeping probation on count XXIV. Accordingly, on remand, the trial court should correct the judgment to reflect probation on count XXIV, and remove the probation term on counts I, II, III, and XXIII. Appellant need not be present for the correction of the error.

Ray, C.J., and Lewis and Jay, JJ., concur.