Skip to main content

Proctor v. State

Citations

  • 901 So. 2d 994
  • 2005 WL 1116008

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • refusing to correct scrivener’s errors in written judgment because “absent the trial court’s ruling on a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion, these errors were not preserved”
  • refusing to correct scrivener’s errors in written judgment because “absent the trial court’s ruling on a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion, these errors were not preserved”
  • “[Tjhis court would not be able to address the [scrivener’s] errors because, absent the trial court’s ruling on a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion, these errors were not preserved.”
  • “[Tjhis court would not be able to address the [scrivener’s] errors because, absent the trial court’s ruling on a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion, these errors were not preserved. See Brannon v. State, 850 So.2d 452, 456 (Fla.2003).”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Per Curiam

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.