Willard v. State
| Decision Date | 16 December 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D08-398.,4D08-398. |
| Citation | 22 So.3d 864 |
| Parties | Paul WILLARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Paul L. Backman, Judge; L.T. Case No. 05-2498 CF10A.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and John Pauly, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Sue-Ellen Kenny, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Appellant, Paul Willard, appeals the trial court's order denying his motion to correct sentencing error, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). Willard contends that the trial court erred by denying his request to correct the amount of the restitution award in the final judgment following revocation of probation. We agree.
Because a motion to correct a sentencing error involves a "purely legal issue," an appellate court's standard of review for such a motion is de novo. See T.L.S. v. State, 949 So.2d 290, 291 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) ().
"Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 allows a trial court to correct a sentencing error." Bell v. State, 900 So.2d 776, 778 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). This includes a "scrivener's error." A scrivener's error occurs when a trial court fails to state the correct amount of restitution still owed to a victim in a final judgment following revocation of probation. See Cherry v. State, 718 So.2d 294, 295 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).
In this case, the trial court erred by committing a scrivener's error via its failure to state the correct amount of restitution still owed by Willard in the final judgment following Willard's revocation of probation. It should have corrected this sentencing error via Willard's rule 3.800 motion. Specifically, Willard, after pleading guilty to dealing in stolen property, was, as part of his probation, ordered to pay $56,000.00 in restitution. Willard paid part, but not all, of the restitution owed during his probationary period. Upon revoking Willard's probation, the trial court should have stated the amount still owed in restitution in the final judgment following revocation of probation—not the original amount awarded.
We, therefore, reverse the trial court's order denying Willard's Rule 3.800(b)(2) Motion to Correct...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Payton v. State
...to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). A motion to correct a sentencing error is reviewed de novo . Willard v. State , 22 So.3d 864 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Rule 3.800(b) allows a defendant to file "[a] motion to correct any sentencing error ... only if the correction of the sentenc......
-
Terry v. State
...November 21, 2017.Appellate Analysis The standard of review for a motion to correct a sentencing error is de novo . Willard v. State , 22 So.3d 864, 864 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). The standard of review regarding a trial court's exercise of case jurisdiction while an appeal is pending is de novo ......
-
Daffin v. State
...error involves a `purely legal issue,' an appellate court's standard of review for such a motion is de novo." Willard v. State, 22 So.3d 864, 864 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (citing T.L.S. v. State, 949 So.2d 290, 291 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)). Here as below, Mr. Daffin asserts a right to credit for the......
-
Powers v. State
...motion to correct a sentencing error is de novo ." Terry v. State , 263 So. 3d 799, 802 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (citing Willard v. State , 22 So. 3d 864, 864 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) ). We also review issues of statutory interpretation de novo . Larimore v. State , 2 So. 3d 101, 106 (Fla. 2008).A. P......