Case ID: so2d_562/html/0452-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DANIEL, Chief Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John BRISTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 89-1828.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    June 28, 1990.
    James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Brynn Newton, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Rebecca R. Wall, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.
   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. 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 split 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).