Esry v. State (Per Curiam)
Annotate this CaseIn 2011, Appellant pleaded guilty to second-degree battery. While the judgment-and-commitment order reflected that Appellant was sentenced to serve ninety-six months’ imprisonment for the offense, the order was not appropriately marked to indicate that Appellant was sentenced as a habitual offender. This appeal concerned Appellant’s third petition to correct an illegal sentence, in which he contended that his sentence was outside the statutory range for second-degree battery, and therefore, the sentence was illegal on its face. The trial court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the failure to appropriately indicate on the judgment-and-commitment order that Appellant was sentenced as a habitual offender was clerical error that did not result in an illegal sentence. Remanded with instructions for the trial court to enter a corrected judgment-and-commitment order reflecting that Appellant was sentenced as a habitual offender.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.