ROBERT LEE MATHIS, 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 drug convictions affirmed, but sentences reversed because written sentences deviated from the trial judge's oral pronouncement at sentencing.
A trial judge's written sentences must conform to the oral pronouncement made at the sentencing hearing, and any deviation requires reversal and resentencing.
[1] A trial judge's written sentences must conform to the oral pronouncement made at sentencing, and any material deviation requires reversal and resentencing.
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 intelligenceMathis was convicted of sale of a controlled substance and possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell. At sentencing, the trial judge or…
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 Possession Of A Controlled Substance With Intent To Sell cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Chief Judge.
The appellant challenges his convictions and sentences for sale of a controlled substance and possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell. We find no merit to the appellant’s challenge insofar as his convictions are concerned.
The appellant’s sentences, however, must be reversed. At the sentencing hearing, the trial judge stated the following:
I am going to ... give you two concurrent five-year probations, consecutive to any sentences that you receive right now, which means that the sentences that you are already under, you’ll go do those sentences. You’ll be released. And you’ll go on the five-years probation on two felonies....
The trial judge then entered written sentences in accordance with his oral pronouncement. Later, however, the trial judge apparently concluded that the written sentences did not conform to his oral pronouncement and he entered “corrected” sentences imposing concurrent terms of five years imprisonment. A written sentence must not vary from the trial judge’s oral pronouncement. Swanson v. State, 399 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Accordingly, we reverse the sentences imposed in this case and remand for resentencing consistent with the trial judge’s oral pronouncement at the sentencing hearing.
Reversed and remanded for resentencing.
SCHOONOVER and FRANK, JJ., concur.