Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

593 So. 2d 623

Merritt v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided February 26, 1992

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1992-02-26

Relies on Barfield v. State

Decided 1992-02-26

PER CURIAM.

¶1We affirm appellant’s departure sentence. Barfield v. State, 594 So.2d 259 (Fla.1992). However, we remand for correction of the judgment. The jury below found the appellant guilty of “petit theft,” but for some unexplained reason, the words “petit theft” on the face of the judgment have been crossed out and the word “robbery” written next to it. The state concedes that this was an improper alteration. On remand, the trial court is directed to correct that line so that it reads “petit theft”.

GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and WARNER and GARRETT, JJ., concur.
/593/so2d/623 · .json · Public domain