ELIJAH HARDEN, 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 Harden challenges his sentencing based on discrepancies between the trial court's oral pronouncements and the written sentencing documents. Both Harden and the State agree that the written orders do not match the oral pronouncements, and the court remands for correction to conform the written documents to what the judge actually said at sentencing.
The oral pronouncements of the trial court prevail over clerical errors in the written sentence. The cause is remanded for correction of the written sentence and probation order to conform to the trial court's oral pronouncements made at sentencing.
[1] Oral pronouncements of a court at a sentencing hearing prevail over clerical errors in the written sentence.
[2] A cause will be remanded for correction of written sentencing documents to conform to the court's oral pronouncements.
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“The state concedes that oral pronouncements prevail over clerical errors. Venuti v. State, 437 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), and Mott v. State, 489 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).”
Establishes the legal principle that oral pronouncements control over written sentencing documents when they conflict.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarden entered a guilty plea. At sentencing, the trial court orally withheld adjudication of guilt, placed him on probation for three and a half years…
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.
PETERSON, Judge.
Elijah Harden requests that this court remand this cause with directions to enter the sentencing order in accordance with the trial court’s oral pronouncements on the authority of Mott v. State, 489 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). The state agrees that the oral pronouncements of the court do not agree with the written sentence and also asks that this matter be remanded.
The appellant entered a plea of guilty. The court withheld adjudication of guilt and placed the defendant on probation for three and a half years with special conditions that he serve 190 days in the Osceola County Jail and pay $255 for investigative costs; in addition, the court imposed a $200 public defender lien. The written sentence signed by the trial judge indicated that the defendant was adjudicated guilty, that he was committed to the custody of the sheriff of Osceola County for a term of 190 days with 14 days credit for time served, that a $200 special public defender lien was imposed, and that $255 investigative costs were assessed. An “Order Withholding Adjudication of Guilt and Placing Defendant on Probation” was signed by the trial court, indicating that the defendant was placed on probation for a period of three and one-half years and, among other conditions, that the defendant pay $20 to the Florida Crimes Compensation Trust Fund and $200 as court costs pursuant to Section 27.3455, Florida Statutes.
The state concedes that oral pronouncements prevail over clerical errors. Venuti v. State, 437 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), and Mott v. State, 489 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). The cause is remanded for correction of the written sentence and order placing the defendant on probation so that they may conform to the oral pronouncements made by the court at the sentencing hearing.
REMANDED FOR CORRECTION OF WRITTEN SENTENCE.
GRIFFIN, J., concurs.
COBB, J., concurs specially with opinion.
COBB, Judge,
concurring specially.
While I concur with the instant result, given the concession by the state, I do not agree that verbal pronouncements necessarily prevail over written sentences. As we pointed out in Wilkins v. State, 543 So. 2d 800, 802 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 554 So. 2d 1170 (Fla.1989), such conflicts, absent such a concession, would require a factual resolution by the trial court to determine whether the error below was verbal or clerical. See also, Marchand v. State, 546 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lester v. State, 563 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…er argues that the inconsistent written sentence must conform to the oral pronouncements. Generally, an oral sentencing pronouncement prevails over a subsequent written sentence where the state concedes that the latter was in error. Harden v. State, 557 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Marchand v. State, 546 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Wilkins v. State, 543 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 554 So. 2d 1170 (Fla.1989); Mott v. State, 489 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Venuti v. State, 437 So. 2d 2…
-
Justice v. State, 658 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…templated the possibility that where there was a discrepancy between the record of the oral pronouncement and the judgment and sentence as written down, the error might have, in fact, resided in the record of the oral pronouncement. Harden v. State, 557 So. 2d 926, 927 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (Cobb, J., concurring). Rather than mechanically apply the “oral prevails over the written” rule by ordering the written to conform to the oral, this court has preferred to send the matter back to the trial court to verify w…1 / 2
-
McDONALD v. State, 564 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…tten judgment and sentence. Thus, the written sentence 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 re…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wilkins v. State, 543 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Marchand v. State, 546 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Venuti v. State, 437 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Suggs v. Cowart, 437 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Symone Rene Mott v. State, 489 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)