D. J. S.
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA

Fla. 2d DCA | 2022-06-24
No. 21-2252
Khouzam, J., Villanti, J., Labrit, J.
Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2022) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

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.

Synopsis

D.J.S. appeals a delinquency disposition order finding he committed eight counts of theft. While the court rejected D.J.S.'s challenges to the suppression motion denial and motion for judgment of dismissal, it found that the amended disposition order contained a scrivener's error: it stated D.J.S. was found guilty of grand theft motor vehicle (count six) despite the trial court's clear oral pronouncement that he was not found guilty of that charge.


Holding

The amended disposition order contained a scrivener's error and must be corrected to conform to the trial court's clear and unambiguous oral pronouncement that D.J.S. did not commit the grand theft motor vehicle offense alleged in count six, even though the denials of the pretrial suppression motion and motion for judgment of dismissal were proper.


Headnotes

[1] A written disposition order must accurately reflect the trial court's orally pronounced disposition.

[2] A court may correct a disposition order to conform to its oral pronouncement.

Previewing 2 of 3 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

Key Quotes

“the amended disposition order conflicts with the trial court's clear and unambiguous oral pronouncement. In particular, although the court expressly found that D.J.S. did not commit the delinquent act alleged in count six, grand theft motor vehicle, the amended disposition order states that the court found that he had done so.”

Establishes the core issue: discrepancy between oral pronouncement and written order regarding count six

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

D.J.S. was charged with eight delinquent acts of theft. Following a bench trial, the trial court made an oral pronouncement of its findings. However, …

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.


Opinion of the Court
Labrit

KHOUZAM, Judge. D.J.S. appeals an amended disposition order finding that he had committed eight delinquent acts of theft. He challenges the denial of his pretrial motion to suppress as well as the denial of his motion for judgment of dismissal at his bench trial.

We find no error in those rulings.

However, the amended disposition order conflicts with the trial court's clear and unambiguous oral pronouncement. In particular, although the court expressly found that D.J.S. did not commit the delinquent act alleged in count six, grand theft motor vehicle, the amended disposition order states that the court found that he had done so.

We accordingly remand with instructions to correct the disposition order to comport with the oral pronouncement. See, e.g., Swaford v. State, 320 So. 3d 331, 331-32 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) (affirming revocation of probation but sua sponte remanding for correction of scrivener's errors in revocation order, which indicated appellant had been found in violation "even though the transcript from the hearing reflects that the trial court declined to find him in violation of that condition"); D.F., Jr. v. State, 650 So. 2d 1097, 1098 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (affirming adjudication of delinquency but remanding to correct scrivener's error indicating that juvenile had been found guilty of wrong offense); see also N.L. v. State, 4 So. 3d 1286, 1287 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (accepting state's concession that written disposition order failing to comport with trial court's orally pronounced disposition must be corrected); S.D.F. v. State, 911 So. 2d 887, 887-888 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (same); L.G. v. State, 702 So. 2d 1337, 1338 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) ("[T]he written order must conform to a clear and unambiguous oral pronouncement or sentence by the trial court.").

Affirmed and remanded for correction of scrivener's error. VILLANTI and LABRIT, JJ., Concur. __________________________ Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Urbaniak v. State, 336 So. 3d 409 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)
    …DCA 2021) (affirming but remanding for the trial court to correct the order of revocation "to reflect that Zurline was found to be in violation after an evidentiary hearing"). Urbaniak need not be present for the corrections. See Swaford v. State, 320 So. 3d 331, 332 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021). Affirmed and remanded. SILBERMAN and LUCAS, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw