Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

966 So. 2d 996

Docket No. 5D06-3769.

Lopez-Vasquez v. State

Wilson J. LOPEZ-VASQUEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided October 5, 2007.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2007-10-05

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently December 2015

3 state decisions

Relies on Anders v. California · Yasin v. State · Davis v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2007-10-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*997 James S. Purdy, Public Defender and Nancy Ryan, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

¶2Wilson J. Lopez-Vasquez, Crawfordville, pro se.

¶3Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee and Mary G. Jolley, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5In this appeal conducted pursuant to Anders v. California,386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we affirm, but remand for entry of an amended judgment or order. In a previous appeal, this court, finding a double jeopardy violation, remanded for the trial court to vacate "one of the shooting convictions." Lopez-Vazquez v. State,931 So.2d 231, 236 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). On remand, the trial court vacated the conviction and sentence for shooting from a vehicle in count III. However, the court did not enter an amended judgment or an order reflecting that count III had been vacated, but only memorialized its ruling by making a handwritten notation on the scoresheet.

¶6We agree with the public defender that appellant is entitled to an amended judgment or order reflecting that he has been adjudicated guilty of two rather than three felonies in the instant case. See Blake v. State,873 So.2d 1259, 1261 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) ("Appellant is entitled to correction of the judgment to reflect Appellant's correct misdemeanor offense."); Poole v. State,777 So.2d 1186, 1187 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (defendant "correctly insists that he is entitled to an accurate 1994 scoresheet"); Davis v. State,529 So.2d 1251, 1252 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (defendant "entitled to have the record set straight even if there is little possibility that the total time actually spent in jail will be affected").

¶7We further find that appellant's sentence for count I, which was corrected pursuant to a Rule 3.800(b)(2) motion, is now consistent with our opinion in Yasin v. State,896 So.2d 875 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

¶8Accordingly, we affirm but remand for entry of an amended judgment or order reflecting that count III has been vacated.

¶9SAWAYA, ORFINGER and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

/966/so2d/996 · .json · Public domain