Thomas v. State, 763 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 2000). · Go Syfert
Search
Thomas v. State, 763 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“lthough is a patent error, because the error has no quantitative effect on the sentence, it is not so serious that it should be corrected as fundamental error.”
28 citation events (20 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: RAFAEL A. CARRION v. STATE OF FLORIDA (fladistctapp, 2022-09-16)
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000 2013 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) RAFAEL A. CARRION v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2022 · signal: cf. · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
lthough is a patent error, because the error has no quantitative effect on the sentence, it is not so serious that it should be corrected as fundamental error.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Troy Curry-Pennamon v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
11th Cir. · 2022 · confidence medium
To be fundamental, an error must be “patent,” such that it has a “qualita- tive effect” on the proceeding, and be “serious.” Thomas v. State, 763 So. 2d 316, 316 (Fla. 2000).
discussed Cited "see" Everette Slocum v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See Thomas v. State, 763 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 2000) (approving district court's decision holding that a conflict between an oral 4 pronouncement that defendant violated one condition of probation and the written revocation order that he violated an additional seven conditions of probation was not fundamental error correctable on appeal absent preservation, as the asserted error had “no quantitative effect on the sentence,” and further noting that the defendant or the State may seek to correct a scrivener's error by filing a motion to correct sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Proced…
cited Cited "see" Alvin Viani Freeman v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See Thomas v. State, 725 So. 2d 1148, 1149 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (citing § 924.051, Fla. Stat. (1996)), approved, 763 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 2000).
discussed Cited "see" Anthony Frazier v. The State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See Thomas v. State, 763 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 2000) (approving district court’s decision holding that a conflict between an oral pronouncement that defendant violated one condition of probation and the written revocation order that he violated an additional seven conditions of probation was not fundamental error correctable on appeal absent preservation, as the asserted error had “no quantitative effect on the sentence,” and further noting that the defendant or the State may seek to correct a scrivener's error by filing a motion to correct sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Proced…
cited Cited "see" Genovese v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See Thomas v. State, 763 So.2d 316 , 316 n.1 (Fla. 2000).
discussed Cited "see" Sheena Latson v. State of Florida (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See Thomas v. State, 763 So.2d 316 , 316 n. 1 (Fla.2000) (refusing to correct an unpreserved scrivener’s error where neither the defendant nor the State sought to correct it by filing a motion to correct sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)); Perkins v. State, 53 So.3d 1141 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (refusing to address scrivener’s error in the written judgments and sentences “because it was not preserved either before this appeal by objection in the trial court or. while this appeal was pending by the filing of a motion to correct sentencing error pursuant to Florid…
cited Cited "see" Evett v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Thomas v. State, 763 So.2d 316 (Fla.2000).
discussed Cited "see" Denson v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Thomas v. State, 763 So.2d 316 n. 1 (Fla.2000)(“It is clear that the defendant or the State may seek to correct a scrivener’s error by filing a motion to correct sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b).”).
cited Cited "see" Blake v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally Thomas v. State, 763 So.2d 316 (Fla.2000).
cited Cited "see" Castor v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Thomas v. State, 763 So.2d 316 (Fla.2000); State v. Causey, 503 So.2d 321 (Fla.1987).
cited Cited "see" Gammon v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Thomas v. State, 763 So.2d 316 (Fla. 2000); Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89 (Fla. 2000).
discussed Cited "see" Jelks v. State (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Thomas, 763 So.2d at 316 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." Johnny Simmons v. The State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2024 · signal: see also · confidence low
Weekly D359 (Fla. 3d DCA Feb. 14, 2024); see also Thomas v. State, 763 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 2000).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." MARK BUCHER v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2023 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Smith v. State, 306 So. 3d 1147 , 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (holding defendant was required to preserve discrepancy between oral pronouncement and written order “either by contemporaneous objection to the written revocation order, or by filing a motion to correct sentence pursuant to [rule] 3.800(b)”); see also Thomas v. State, 763 So. 2d 316, 316 (Fla. 2000) (approving district court decision characterizing conflict between oral pronouncement and written order “as a ‘scrivener’s error’ that did not constitute fundamental error correctable on direct appeal absent preservation” …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Jones v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Gammon v. State, 778 So.2d 390, 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Smith v. State, 780 So.2d 166 , 167 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Jelks, 770 So.2d at 185 ; see also Thomas v. State, 763 So.2d 316 , 316 n. 1 (Fla.2000).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Tommy THOMAS, Petitioner,
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.
SC94469.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Jul 13, 2000.
763 So. 2d 316
Per Curiam.
Cited by 19 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 64%
Citer courts: District Court of Appeal of Fl… (1)

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Robert D. Rosen, Assistant Public Defender, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Bartow, Florida, for Petitioner.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Robert J. Krauss, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Chief of Criminal Law, and William I. Munsey, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, Florida, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Thomas v. State, 725 So.2d 1148 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), on the basis of direct and express conflict. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We recently resolved this conflict in Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89 (Fla.2000). Thomas contends that fundamental error occurred when the trial court orally found that he had violated one condition of his probation, but the written order revoking probation stated that he had violated an additional seven conditions of probation. The district court characterized this as a "scrivener's error" that did not constitute fundamental error correctable on direct appeal absent preservation. See Thomas, 725 So.2d at 1148.[1] We concluded in Maddox that although this is a patent error, because the error has no quantitative effect on the sentence, it is not so serious that it should be corrected on appeal as fundamental error. 760 So.2d at 99. We therefore approve the decision of the Second District.

It is so ordered.

WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

1 It is clear that the defendant or the State may seek to correct a scrivener's error by filing a motion to correct sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b). See Amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.111(e) & 3.800 & Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.020(h), 9.140, & 9.600, 761 So.2d 1015 (Fla.1999), reh'g granted, 761 So.2d at 1025. In this case, the error was not preserved for appellate review.