PAUL BRAMMER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
Appellant raises error only as to the sentence imposed for count I of his multi-count conviction. He was orally sentenced on that count to five years probation with the first 364 days to be served in county jail. However, appellant’s written sentence for count I indicates a sentence of 364 days followed by five years probation.
As the parties agree, when there is a discrepancy between the written sentence and the oral pronouncement of sentence, the latter prevails. See Bogan v. State, 462 So. 2d 115 (Fla.2d DCA 1985). Therefore, we remand with directions to conform the written sentence as to count I to the oral pronouncement of sentence. Otherwise, affirmed.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McDONALD v. State, 564 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…does not conform to the oral pronouncement. Normally, the oral pronouncement would prevail and this court would remand to conform the written sentence to the oral pronouncement. Harden v. State, 557 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Brammer v. State, 554 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Cobb v. State, 554 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Woodfin v. State, 553 So. 2d 1355 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). However, since the oral sentence in this case contains errors, upon remand, the trial judge shall correct the sentences purs…
-
Baker v. State, 760 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…sentence for robbery was to run concurrent with the sentence for felony murder. The trial court said at the sentencing hearing the sentences were to run concurrent to one another, and the oral pronouncement governs a conflict. See Brammer v. State, 554 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). In addition, section 921.16 provides that sentences run concurrently if not otherwise specified.4 Thus, to save judicial time and effort, we correct the written sentences to provide they run concurrently with one another. AFFIRM…
-
Williams v. State, 744 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…review the record and determine whether there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and written sentences. If there is, the written sentencing documents shall be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement. See, e.g., Brammer v. State, 554 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (holding that where there is a discrepancy between the written sentence and the oral pronouncement of sentence, the latter prevails). If the trial court determines that there is no discrepancy and again denies Williams’ claim, it…
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
- Bogan v. State, 462 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- O'Byrne v. State, 462 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)