
    James Melvin BOLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 97-01012.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Sept. 10, 1999.
    James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Andrea Norgard, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
    
      Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah F. Hogge, Assistant .Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
   SALCINES, Judge.

James Melvin Boley appeals his adjudication of guilt as well as the sentences imposed thereon following a jury’s verdict of guilt on multiple counts of battery and sexual battery, and a single count of incest. He also challenges his designation as a sexual predator. We affirm his judgment in all respects except for those portions in which a clerical error resulted in a misspelling regarding Boley’s surname in the style and opening sentence of the first page of the judgment. We remand the judgment for a correction of this error. We affirm the sentences imposed without comment.

Finally, as the State concedes, Boley was improperly designated a sexual predator. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions that the trial court strike Boley’s designation as a sexual predator.

Affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part with directions.

BLUE, A.C.J., Concurs specially with opinion.

GREEN, J., Concurs.

BLUE, Acting Chief Judge,

Specially concurring.

The primary issue in this appeal is the claim that it was fundamental error to consolidate for trial the sexual battery charge against Mr. Boley with the trial of another defendant charged with sexual battery of the same victim. I concur because I agree the consolidation was not fundamental error. Ordinarily, under the circumstances present in this appeal, it would be error to consolidate the cases. Although both defendants were chargéd with sexual battery of the same victim, the incidents were separated in time and place, and the two defendants were not even aware that the other had sexually battered the victim. The only common element between the two cases was the victim.

There is no reversible error because, for reasons not apparent from this record, trial counsel stipulated to the consolidation. There may have been a strategic reason for the stipulation, but this cannot be determined from the record before us. However, even if there was not a tactical trial basis for the consolidation, relief is not available on direct appeal,  