JAY MARK TIMMONS, 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.
Appellant's DWI manslaughter conviction is affirmed, but the written sentencing order is vacated and remanded because it imposed a $12,000 fine instead of the $10,000 fine orally pronounced by the trial judge, requiring correction to conform the written order to the oral pronouncement.
The oral pronouncement of sentence controls, and a written sentencing order must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement when they conflict.
[1] When an oral pronouncement of sentence and a written sentencing order conflict, the oral pronouncement controls and the written order must be corrected to conform to it.
Previewing 1 of 1 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“However, the oral pronouncement of sentence controls and the written order must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement.”
Court explaining the rule governing discrepancies between oral and written sentences.
Appellant was convicted of DWI manslaughter under Florida Statutes Section 316.1931. The trial judge orally pronounced a sentence of twelve years impr…
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 Dwi Manslaughter cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Judge.
Appellant appeals the sentence imposed by the trial judge for his violation of Florida Statutes Section 316.1931 (1982), i.e., DWI manslaughter. We affirm appellant’s conviction, but vacate the written sentencing order, and remand the cause so that a corrected written sentencing order may be entered which conforms to the sentence as orally pronounced.
At the sentencing hearing, the trial judge orally pronounced that appellant be committed to the Department of Corrections for twelve (12) years and that he pay a $10,000 fine. This is a legal sentence. Sections 782.07, 775.082, and 775.083, Florida Statutes (1981). In his written sentencing order, the trial judge recited that appellant be committed to the Department of Corrections for twelve (12) years and that he pay a $12,000 fine. This is not a legal sentence. Id. However, the oral pronouncement of sentence controls and the written order must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement. See Kelly v. State, 414 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Sandstrom v. State, 390 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), rev. denied, 397 So. 2d 779 (Fla.1981).
Accordingly, appellant’s conviction is affirmed, the written sentencing order is vacated, and this cause is remanded so that a corrected written sentencing order may be entered which conforms to the sentence as orally pronounced.
MILLS and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
Rowland v. State, 548 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…ronouncement that appellant submit to “counseling” as well as alcohol and drug “evaluation.” We disagree with the state’s interpretation of the oral pronouncement. A trial court’s oral pronouncement controls over its written order. Timmons v. State, 453 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The inclusion of special conditions of probation in a written order that were not orally pronounced at the sentencing hearing mandates a reversal and remand for correction of the written order to conform to the oral pronouncemen…
-
Evans v. State, 625 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…eviates from the judge’s oral pronouncement, we remand to the trial court for correction of the written sentence. See, e.g., Mondello v. State, 599 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Brown v. State, 599 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Timmons v. State, 453 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). [*917] On the fourth and final issue, the appellant’s due process and equal protection challenges to the habitual felony offender statute have been rejected by the supreme court in Ross v. State, 601 So. 2d 1190 (Fla.1992). Alth…
-
Collins v. State, 546 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…entences are inconsistent with the oral pronouncement of those sentences, we direct the trial court on remand to correct the written sentences to conform to the oral sentences. Ferguson v. State, 545 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Timmons v. State, 453 So. 2d 143, 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). REVERSED and REMANDED. SHIVERS, C.J. and JOANOS, J., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Daniels v. State, 414 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Sandstrom v. State, 390 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)