Saviory v. State
The Sixth District affirmed the correction of a scrivener's error in Saviory's written sentence, rejecting his claim that he had a right to counsel at the proceeding. Chief Judge Traver's special concurrence clarifies that the successor postconviction court's correction of the written sentence to conform to the original legal oral pronouncement was a ministerial act, not a 'resentencing,' even though the lower court mistakenly labeled it as such.
Key facts
- Saviory was convicted and sentenced, but the written sentencing document contained a scrivener's error that transposed sentences between counts, differing from the trial court's legal oral pronouncement.
- Saviory moved to correct the written sentence under rule 3.800(a) and claimed he had a right to counsel at the correction proceeding.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion gives practitioners a clear framework for distinguishing between a true 'resentencing' (which requires the defendant's presence and right to counsel under Scott, Taylor, and Jordan) and a purely ministerial… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.