EARNEST JAMES BROWN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 a written sentencing order must conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement, and that standard jury instructions adequately covered the issue of identification.
The appellant was convicted of sexual battery, petit theft, and burglary. The written sentencing order stated a life sentence for sexual battery, but …
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 Order cases and more on FLexlaw
[*600] HENDRY, Judge.
The appellant, Earnest James Brown, was charged in a three count information with (1) sexual battery, (2) robbery and (3) burglary. A jury found him guilty of sexual battery on count one, petit theft on count two and burglary on count three.
The court adjudicated him guilty and imposed a life sentence on the burglary count and suspended sentence as to the other two counts. However, the written order states that the life sentence was imposed for count one (sexual battery).
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in entering a written sentencing order which differed from the court’s oral pronouncement. We find merit in this contention. The written sentence must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement of the court. Sirmons v. State, 405 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Sandstrom v. State, 390 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); petition for review denied, 397 So. 2d 779 (Fla.1981).
As to the conviction, appellant seeks reversal on the ground that the trial court erred in denying his request for a special jury instruction on identification since it was a critical issue at trial. We find no error in the trial court’s instructions to the jury. The instructions given were clear, comprehensive and correct. No special instruction on the issue of identity was necessary or required. The issue was adequately covered in the standard jury instructions that were given. State v. Freeman, 380 So. 2d 1288 (Fla.1980); Smith v. State, 375 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 383 So. 2d 1202 (Fla.1980); Cruz v. State, 310 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).
For the reasons stated the judgment appealed is affirmed, but the cause is remanded for correction of the sentence in accordance with this opinion.
Affirmed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Roberts v. State, 512 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…ly, we affirm the probation revocation order under review, but direct that the subject order be modified on remand so as to conform to the oral findings of the trial court. See Bexley v. State, 490 So. 2d 226, 228 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Brown v. State, 423 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Affirmed and remanded for modification.…
-
Brown v. State, 728 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…court erred in denying a special jury instruction. We conclude, however, that the matter was adequately covered in the standard jury instructions and thus the trial court did not err by rejecting defendant’s special instruction. See Brown v. State, 423 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). . The issue was preserved by the defendant in the fashion set forth in Longshore v. Fronrath [*759] Chevrolet, Inc., 527 So. 2d 922, 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). . The trial court, after questioning other prospects, returned to Mer…
-
Donald & Bales Exterminating, Inc. v. State, 487 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…order appealed from and ... cannot be at issue before 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…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sandstrom v. State, 390 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Martinez, 375 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- State v. Cleveland Freeman, 380 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 1980)
- Felio Cruz v. State, 310 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Schilling v. Schilling, 405 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Sirmons v. State, 405 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)