SONYA RENE ALPHONSE, 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.
Separate sentences for possession and sale of the same controlled substances are proper, but written sentences must conform to oral pronouncements.
Appellant was convicted of possession and sale of cannabis and received separate sentences. The written sentences imposed a ten-year probation, differ…
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.
LEHAN, Judge.
Appellant appeals from her adjudication of guilt, and sentencing, for the offenses of possession of cannabis and sale of cannabis. The trial court imposed separate sentences for each offense.
Appellant’s first contention is that the trial court erred by imposing separate sentences for the possession and sale of the same controlled substances. We disagree. Separate sentences under these circumstances were proper. Smith v. State, 430 So. 2d 448 (Fla.1983); Fundak v. State, 362 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978).
Appellant’s second contention is that the written sentences are at variance with the court’s oral sentencing. The trial court orally pronounced that appellant would be sentenced to five years’ probation for Count I, the possession offense, and five years’probation for Count II, the sale offense, the sentence for Count II to run consecutively to that for Count I. On the written judgment, however, appellant was placed on probation for a period of ten years. Under the trial court’s oral pronouncement, one ten-year probationary period was not contemplated. The written judgment and sentence must not vary from the oral pronouncement. Patrick v. State, 413 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).
We affirm appellant’s convictions but remand the cause with directions to conform the written judgment to the oral pronouncement of sentence.
SCHEB, Acting C.J., and SCHOON-OVER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Beal v. State, 478 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…an habitual offender and retained jurisdiction over one-third of his sentence. A written judgment and sentence must not vary from the oral pronouncement of judgment and sentence. Bogan v. State, 462 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Alphonse v. State, 430 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Thus, the trial court erred by entering a written order inconsistent with its utterances at the sentencing hearing. The trial court further erred by attempting to retain jurisdiction over the appellant. The appellant was senten…
-
Bogan v. State, 462 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…one-half years concurrent imprisonment on each count departs from its oral pronouncement imposing a three-year concurrent sentence on each count. Because the written judgment and sentence must not vary from the oral pronouncement, Alphonse v. State, 430 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), we remand this case to the trial court with directions to conform the written sentence with its oral pronouncement. Affirmed and remanded with directions. OTT, A.C.J., FRANK, J., and BOARD-MAN, EDWARD F„ (Ret.) J., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Smith v. State, 430 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 1983)
- Fundak v. State, 362 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Patrick v. State, 413 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)