D. J. S. v. State of Florida
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledJune 24, 2022
Docket2D21-2252
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
D.J.S.,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
No. 2D21-2252
June 24, 2022
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Robert A.
Bauman, Judge.
Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Megan Olson, Assistant
Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Donna S. Koch,
Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
KHOUZAM, Judge.
D.J.S. appeals an amended disposition order finding that he
had committed eight delinquent acts of theft. He challenges the
denial of his pretrial motion to suppress as well as the denial of his
motion for judgment of dismissal at his bench trial. We find no
error in those rulings.
However, the amended disposition order conflicts with the trial
court's clear and unambiguous oral pronouncement. In particular,
although the court expressly found that D.J.S. did not commit the
delinquent act alleged in count six, grand theft motor vehicle, the
amended disposition order states that the court found that he had
done so.
We accordingly remand with instructions to correct the
disposition order to comport with the oral pronouncement. See,
e.g., Swaford v. State, 320 So. 3d 331, 331-32 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)
(affirming revocation of probation but sua sponte remanding for
correction of scrivener's errors in revocation order, which indicated
appellant had been found in violation "even though the transcript
from the hearing reflects that the trial court declined to find him in
violation of that condition"); D.F., Jr. v. State, 650 So. 2d 1097,
1098 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (affirming adjudication of delinquency but
remanding to correct scrivener's error indicating that juvenile had
2
been found guilty of wrong offense); see also N.L. v. State, 4 So. 3d
1286, 1287 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (accepting state's concession that
written disposition order failing to comport with trial court's orally
pronounced disposition must be corrected); S.D.F. v. State, 911 So.
2d 887, 887-888 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (same); L.G. v. State, 702 So.
2d 1337, 1338 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) ("[T]he written order must
conform to a clear and unambiguous oral pronouncement or
sentence by the trial court.").
Affirmed and remanded for correction of scrivener's error.
VILLANTI and LABRIT, JJ., Concur.
__________________________
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
3