EUGENE SWANSON, 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 where the written sentence differs from the orally pronounced sentence, the written sentence must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement.
Appellant was convicted of multiple felonies and sentenced. The written sentencing order differed from the oral pronouncement regarding the consecutiv…
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 Written Sentencing Order cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Judge.
On a four count information, appellant was convicted of trespass to an occupied conveyance (count I), kidnapping (count II), sexual battery (count III), and robbery with a deadly weapon (count IV). The trial court announced sentences against appellant of one year on count I, thirty years on count II, thirty years on count III and sixty years on count IV. As orally pronounced by the trial court, the sentence for count III was to be served consecutive to the sentence for count I; the sentence for count II was to be served concurrently with the sentence for count I; and the sentence for count IV was to be served consecutive to the sentence for counts II and III. The written sentence, however, provided that the sentence for count III was to be served consecutive to the sentence for count II and that the sentence for count IV was to be served consecutive to the sentence for count III.
Appellant is correct in his contention that the sentence as orally pronounced by the trial court and the sentence as written and signed by the court, differ. Under the sentence as orally pronounced by the court the appellant could, at most, be required to serve ninety-one years in prison. But under the written sentence, the maximum term of imprisonment was 120 years.
Accordingly, we affirm the convictions but vacate the sentencing order. The case is remanded so that a corrected written order may be entered which conforms to the sentence as orally pronounced. See Sandstrom v. State, 390 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Sampson v. State, 375 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).
HOBSON, Acting C. J., and RYDER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mathis v. State, 509 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…the written sentences did not conform to his oral pronouncement and he entered “corrected” sentences imposing concurrent terms of five years imprisonment. A written sentence must not vary from the trial judge’s oral pronouncement. Swanson v. State, 399 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Accordingly, we reverse the sentences imposed in this case and remand for resentencing consistent with the trial judge’s oral pronouncement at the sentencing hearing. Reversed and remanded for resentenc-ing. SCHOONOVER and FR…
-
Swanson v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 548 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…n count four to run consecutively to the sentence on count three. Meanwhile, Swanson appealed the validity of the written sentence, contending that the written sentence did not conform to the oral sentence pronounced in open court. Swanson v. State, 399 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Reversing, the second district ruled that the maximum cumulative term of imprisonment was 120 years under the written sentence, while the oral pronouncement required count two to run concurrently with count one, which would requi…
Authorities Cited
- Sterling Sampson v. State, 375 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Sandstrom v. State, 390 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)