From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Siroky v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Oct 20, 1988
532 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

Opinion

No. 87-1912.

October 20, 1988.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County; Kim C. Hammond, Judge.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Nancye R. Crouch, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Colin Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.


The appellant, Leo Siroky, contends that the trial court, through scrivener's error, entered a written order which did not conform to the court's oral pronouncement at the time of sentencing. The judge verbally indicated his intention to impose a special condition of community control, i.e., that defendant have only supervised contact with his children; instead, the written order subsequently entered prohibited all association with the children. The state concedes this necessity for correction. The appeal is otherwise without merit.

Accordingly, we affirm, but remand this cause to the trial court for the purpose of conforming the written order to the verbal pronouncement pursuant to Cahill v. State, 526 So.2d 220 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.

DAUKSCH and COWART, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Siroky v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Oct 20, 1988
532 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)
Case details for

Siroky v. State

Case Details

Full title:LEO SIROKY, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Oct 20, 1988

Citations

532 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

Citing Cases

Dyer v. State

We note that the sentences in the record with respect to the burglary of a dwelling count and the escape…