ELIJAH WOOTEN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the written judgment and sentence must be corrected to accurately reflect the oral sentences pronounced by the trial court.
Appellant was convicted of three felonies and sentenced as a habitual offender. The oral pronouncement of sentences contained errors regarding which c…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sentencing Error cases and more on FLexlaw
OTT, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of three separate criminal charges: attempted robbery with a deadly weapon; burglary in the course of which he committed an assault; and attempted sexual battery with the use of a deadly weapon. After proper notice and a hearing, appellant was sentenced as an habitual offender pursuant to Section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1977).
The court determined to give the appellant ten-year concurrent terms for attempted sexual battery and attempted robbery, to run consecutively to a life sentence for the burglary charge. His oral announcement of the sentences, however, erroneously assigned the life sentence to the attempted sexual battery charge and a ten-year sentence to the burglary charge. Counsel immediately advised the court of its error. The record shows that the court promptly corrected the error. However, the written judgment and sentence reflected the original erroneous sentence. Thus, we remand this case so that the trial court can amend the written judgment and sentences to correctly reflect the sentences imposed.
We have examined the other points raised by appellant and find them to be without merit.
Accordingly, we affirm appellant’s convictions on the three charges, but set aside the sentences and remand with directions that appellant’s written sentences be corrected to show that appellant was sentenced to concurrent ten-year terms for attempted sexual battery and attempted robbery, to run consecutively to a life sentence for burglary. Appellant need not be present for this purpose.
SCHEB, Acting C. J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kaylor v. Kaylor, 390 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…f alimony” was unreasonable. At that time, the trial court will appropriately take into consideration the state of appellant’s health, as well as the other factors bearing on her entitlement to an award of permanent alimony . . . Hebert v. Hebert, 382 So. 2d 842, 843 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). See Barker v. Barker, 384 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). We also agree with the trial court that the husband had a special equity in the capital stock of the corporation which employs him. The funds for acquiring the stoc…