Case Name: Tyrone BOWEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1974-10-04
Citations: 301 So. 2d 793
Docket Number: No. 74-136
Parties: Tyrone BOWEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: McNULTY, C. J., and BOARDMAN, J., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 301
Pages: 793–795

Head Matter:
Tyrone BOWEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 74-136.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Oct. 4, 1974.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 7, 1974.
James A. Gardner, Public Defender, and E. Earl Taylor, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted, under a two-count information, of breaking and entering an automobile with intent to commit larceny, as charged in County One, and of grand larceny as charged in Count Two. The evidence was sufficient to support the judgments under the charges as laid in the information. Accordingly, on the merits of the appeal no reversible error appears.
It is patent from the record that each offense occurred as a result of the same burglarious episode. Notwithstanding, contrary to our holding in Edmond v. State the court entered two judgments and imposed two sentences.
We hold, as to Count One, that the judgment and sentence are lawful and should remain undisturbed. As to Count Two, however, the sentence should be, and it is hereby, vacated.
One final matter needs our attention. We note that the written judgments entered herein erroneously reflect that each count consisted of a charge of breaking and entering an auto. The judgment as to Count Two should have reflected that such count involved the charge of grand larceny, not "B & E AUTO." It is patent from the information, the evidence, the arguments of counsel" and the verdicts of the jury that such error is a scrivener's error. Accordingly, upon remand the court is directed to clarify the record and amend the judgment on Count Two so as to reflect the conviction therein to be on the charge of grand larceny. The sentence imposed thereon, however, is vacated as indicated above.
McNULTY, C. J., and BOARDMAN, J., concur.
MANN, J. (Ret.), concurs specially with opinion.
. (Fla.App.2d, 1973), 280 So.2d 449.
. Edmond v. State, id.