Opinion ID: 1588587
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Motion to Correct Transcript

Text: The official transcript of the June 1-2, 2009, evidentiary hearing indicates that when asked to described Wigley, Leon Douglass stated that [h]e was a black male, kind of skinny, brownish/blackish hair, dark-colored hair, if you will, five-foot-seven, -eight. Marek's counsel filed a motion to correct the transcript, asserting that he did not hear Douglass describe Wigley  who was white  as a black male and requesting a hearing to address the accuracy of the transcript. The postconviction court denied the motion, finding that the transcript was not in error. The postconviction court explained that it had a specific recollection that Mr. Douglass described Raymond Wigley as a black man. On appeal, the defense contends that the postconviction court erred in denying the motion to correct without allowing the parties an opportunity to listen to the backup tape of the testimony. Yet, defense counsel also asserts that the court reporter who transcribed the hearing stated that he did not recall Mr. Douglass describing Raymond Wigley as a black male, but that was what it soundly [sic] like Mr. Douglass said on the backup tape. On this record, we cannot say that the postconviction court erred. Cf. Matson v. State, 445 So.2d 1121 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (relinquishing jurisdiction for trial court to conduct evidentiary hearing on motion to correct transcript where court reporter averred that she erroneously transcribed her notes). In any event, given the context of all the evidence at the evidentiary hearing and the negligible probative value of Douglass's testimony, any error with respect to this motion was necessarily harmless.