WILLIAM MACK ROBINSON, 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 appellate court affirmed convictions for burglary and dealing in stolen property but remanded the case to clarify a discrepancy between the oral sentence and the written judgment regarding the sentence for dealing in stolen property. The court directed the trial court to determine the source of the error and correct the sentence accordingly.
The court held that there was a discrepancy between the oral sentence and the written judgment concerning the sentence for dealing in stolen property. The case was remanded to the trial court to determine the nature of the error and to clarify the sentence.
[1] A discrepancy between an oral sentencing pronouncement and a written judgment and sentence order requires remand for clarification when the parties dispute the location o…
[2] A trial court must clarify a sentencing order when there is a material difference between the oral pronouncement and the written judgment.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Appellant appeals his convictions after trial by jury of burglary and dealing in stolen property. We affirm in part and reverse and remand to the trial court for entry of an order clarifying the sentence.”
Establishes the appellate court's decision on the convictions and the need for remand.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was convicted by a jury of burglary and dealing in stolen property. At sentencing, the trial judge orally imposed concurrent five-year s…
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 Discrepancy Between Oral And Written Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals his convictions after trial by jury of burglary and dealing in stolen property. We affirm in part and reverse and remand to the trial court for entry of an order clarifying the sentence.
At sentencing, the trial judge orally sentenced appellant to a term of five years for burglary and to a concurrent five-year term for dealing in stolen property. However, in the written judgment and sentence which was signed in open court the same day, the sentence reads five years for burglary and 15 years for dealing in stolen property, to run concurrently. Appellant contends that the discrepancy between the oral announcement and the written order relating to the sentence imposed on possession of stolen property requires the case to be remanded with directions to the trial court to correct the clerical error in the written order. Compare Badger v. State, 398 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), in which, at sentencing, the trial court orally imposed a term of 10 years on the defendant, but in the written order of judgment and sentence, the defendant was sentenced to a term of 15 years. This Court remanded “with directions to the trial court to correct the apparent clerical error.” See also Gatti v. State, 324 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1975), upon which the Badger decision relied. Ap-pellee, however, contends that the “clerical error” is not in the written order but is an error in the transcript of the sentencing hearing.
Since the parties in this case are in dispute as to where the “error” occurred, the case is remanded to the trial court with directions to determine whether the transcript was in error or whether a clerical error was made in the written order and to, thereupon, enter an order clarifying the sentence.
We have considered the other point raised by appellant and find it to be without merit.
Affirmed in part and reversed and remanded to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
McCORD, LARRY G. SMITH and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Blocker v. State, 968 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…, 749 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Manual v. State, 547 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Gonzales v. State, 488 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), disapproved of on other grounds in Frey v. State, 708 So. 2d 918, 920 n. 3 (Fla.1998); Robinson v. State, 407 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). It is not so obvious, however, that such relief should be granted in a postconviction proceeding filed many years after the sentencing hearing. The only way to actually determine whether both Mr. Blocker’s attorney and the tria…
-
Donald & Bales Exterminating, Inc. v. State, 487 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…this court.” A defendant, nevertheless, has the right to have a sentence clarified when there is a conflict between the oral imposition of a sentence and the written sentence. See Brown v. State, 423 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Robinson v. State, 407 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Tory v. State, 391 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Although the language in the written order of probation at bar does not contain the restrictions reflected in the court's oral pronouncements, the appellant similarly has the ri…
-
Sullivan v. State, 538 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…vantage in attempting to determine, in the first instance, just how and why the inconsistencies appearing in the record occurred. Accordingly, the case is remanded to the trial court to enter an order clarifying the sentences. See Robinson v. State, 407 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The state has conceded that the written judgment as to Count I of the indictment is in error and should be corrected. REVERSED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion. ERVIN and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Badger v. State, 398 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Gatti v. State, 324 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)