DENNIS L. POPE, 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 the trial court's written sentence did not conform to its oral pronouncement, and the record was insufficient to determine entitlement to relief.
The defendant was sentenced in three cases, with oral pronouncements indicating concurrent sentences. However, the written sentence for one case appea…
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 Oral Pronouncement Of Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals from an order of the trial court which found, in response to his “Motion for Emergency Relief,” that all his sentences which were imposed in three cases are to be concurrent except one. We reverse.
In case number 3206 defendant was sentenced on January 16,1985, to fifteen years for dealing in stolen property and five years for grand theft, the sentences to run concurrently.
In case number 4392 defendant was sentenced on August 23, 1985, to fifteen years for sexual battery, the sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentences.
In case number 1637 defendant was found to be a habitual offender and sentenced on October 30, 1985, to eight years for grand theft — auto. Apparently the Department of Corrections treated the eight year sentence as being consecutive to the other sentences, and defendant asked the trial judge to clarify his sentences.
We conclude that defendant’s argument is that the oral pronouncement of the trial court was that all sentences were to run concurrently and that the written eight year sentence does not conform to that oral pronouncement. The trial court, however, upon consideration of the foregoing motion determined that the eight year sentence was to be consecutive to the other sentences. We also conclude that the motion was, in effect, a motion to correct sentence pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850.
We cannot determine from the record before us whether defendant is entitled to relief. Therefore, we remand for the trial court to either furnish sufficient portions of the record to show that defendant is not entitled to relief, or hold an evidentiary hearing. If defendant thereafter desires to seek appellate relief, he must file a notice of appeal within thirty days.
Reversed and remanded.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and LEHAN and SANDERLIN, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pedro F. Bernal, M.D. v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 517 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…ion, but as tailored to the [*116] situation of Dr. Bernal in particular. A mere disagreement of this kind does not, under our statute, justify a substitution of the judgment of the board for that of the officer. Van Ore v. Bd. of Medical Examiners, 489 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Hutson v. Casey, 484 So. 2d at 1284. Our conclusion to this effect is in accord with Judge Nimmons’s dissent in Britt v. Dep’t of Professional Regulation, 492 So. 2d 697, 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), which is very similar to this ca…
-
Earl B. Britt, M.D. v. Dep't OF Prof'l Reg., 492 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…ncy complied with the provisions of Section 120.57(l)(b)9 (Florida Statutes 1984 Supp.) in increasing the penalty provided for in the recommended order. See Hutson v. Casey, 484 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Van Ore v. Board of Medical Examiners, 489 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). I would therefore vacate the final order and remand the case to the agency with instructions to enter another final order which complies with the requirements of Section 120.57(l)(b)9, assuming that the Board, on remand, choos…
-
Rajendr Bajrangi v. Dep't of Bus. Reg., 561 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…ions have found the requisite rationale for enhancing a penalty to be lacking and have remanded for the agency to either comply with the requirements of the statute or impose the recommended penalty. See, e.g., Van Ore v. Board of Medical Examiners, 489 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) and cases cited therein. . See Judge Gunther’s dissent in Hanley v. Dep’t of Prof. Reg., 549 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) and Jimenez v. Dep’t of Prof. Reg., 556 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). . Reference to that section a…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence