What did the court decide?

The court affirmed the dismissal of Harrell's postconviction motion but ordered the lower court to correct a clerical error in the written order to reference the correct motion date.

Who is affected by this decision?

Gerald Harrell (the appellant) and the State of Florida are affected; the correction affects which dated motion is identified in the dismissal order but not the dismissal itself.

The case is remanded to the trial court to amend the order so it correctly states that the November 22, 2023 motion — not the November 20 motion — was dismissed with prejudice.

Can this be appealed further?

Because the appellate court affirmed the dismissal on the merits and only ordered a clerical correction, further appeal would be limited and would likely require showing a legal basis to challenge the affirmance or the remand correction.

Harrell v. State of Florida

Docket 2D2025-3043

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

Habeas CorpusAffirmed

Filed: Apr 24, 2026 · 1 week ago
Jurisdiction: Florida
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
Type: Opinion
Case type: Habeas Corpus
Disposition: Affirmed
Docket: 2D2025-3043

Appeal from an order dismissing a motion for postconviction relief under Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2)

Summary

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Gerald Harrell's postconviction motion but found a clerical error in the dismissal directive. The judgment below correctly dismissed Harrell's motion for postconviction relief, yet the written order mistakenly identified the November 20, 2023 motion as dismissed with prejudice when it should have referred to the November 22, 2023 motion. The case is therefore remanded solely to correct that scrivener's error in the order; no change was made to the substantive dismissal.

Issues Decided

Whether the trial court properly dismissed the defendant's postconviction motion
Whether the written order contains a scrivener's error requiring correction

Court's Reasoning

The appellate court agreed with the lower court's substantive conclusion to dismiss the postconviction motion, indicating no reversible error in that dismissal. However, the court identified a discrepancy between the motion date referenced in the order and the actual motion intended to be dismissed; because this was a clerical drafting mistake rather than a substantive error, correction on remand was appropriate. The remand was limited to fixing the scrivener's error without altering the dismissal's substance.

Parties

Appellant: Gerald Harrell
Appellee: State of Florida
Judge: Michelle Sisco

Key Dates

Opinion date: 2026-04-24
Motion (incorrectly referenced): 2023-11-20
Motion (intended to be dismissed): 2023-11-22

What You Should Do Next

1
Prepare amended order
Clerk or judge should enter a corrected order reflecting that the November 22, 2023 motion was dismissed with prejudice, remedying the scrivener's error.
2
Notify parties
Ensure counsel for both parties receive the corrected order so the record accurately reflects which motion was dismissed.
3
Consult counsel if unclear
If appellant believes the clerical correction affects substantive rights, he should consult his attorney about whether to seek further review.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The court affirmed the dismissal of Harrell's postconviction motion but ordered the lower court to correct a clerical error in the written order to reference the correct motion date.
Who is affected by this decision?: Gerald Harrell (the appellant) and the State of Florida are affected; the correction affects which dated motion is identified in the dismissal order but not the dismissal itself.
What happens next?: The case is remanded to the trial court to amend the order so it correctly states that the November 22, 2023 motion — not the November 20 motion — was dismissed with prejudice.
Can this be appealed further?: Because the appellate court affirmed the dismissal on the merits and only ordered a clerical correction, further appeal would be limited and would likely require showing a legal basis to challenge the affirmance or the remand correction.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
                        SECOND DISTRICT

                            GERALD HARRELL,

                                 Appellant,

                                      v.

                           STATE OF FLORIDA,

                                  Appellee.

                             No. 2D2025-3043


                               April 24, 2026

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for
Hillsborough County; Michelle Sisco, Judge.

Robert Lawrence Sirianni, Winter Park, for Appellant.

PER CURIAM.

      We affirm the order dismissing Gerald Harrell's motion for
postconviction relief. However, we remand for correction of the
scrivener's error in the directive. The order reflects that the November
20, 2023, motion is dismissed with prejudice instead of the November
22, 2023, motion.

LUCAS, C.J., and VILLANTI and BLACK, JJ., Concur.


Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.