TIMOTHY DEAN LESTER, 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.
Timothy Dean Lester, a juvenile, appeals his sentence for carrying a concealed firearm, challenging inconsistencies between the oral pronouncement and written order, defects in the youthful offender classification, and the assessment of costs without proper notice. The court vacates the sentence and remands for resentencing.
The court held that because the state did not concede the written sentence was entirely in error, the oral pronouncement cannot simply substitute for the written order, and the trial court must resolve the conflict on remand. Additionally, the oral sentence was defective because the court failed to make the required statutory finding regarding Lester's suitability for adult sanctions, and the assessment of costs was erroneous because Lester received no notice or opportunity to object.
[1] A written sentence order must conform to the oral pronouncement when the state concedes the written order contains errors.
[2] Where a conflict exists between an oral sentencing pronouncement and a written order, and the state does not concede error, the trial court must resolve the factual discr…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“an oral sentencing pronouncement prevails over a subsequent written sentence where the state concedes that the latter was in error”
Establishes the general rule governing conflicts between oral and written sentences
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLester, a juvenile, entered a guilty plea to carrying a concealed firearm. At sentencing, the trial court orally classified him as a youthful offender…
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 Youthful Offender Classification cases and more on FLexlaw
PETERSON, Judge.
Timothy Dean Lester, a juvenile, appeals the terms of his sentence. We remand for resentencing.
Lester entered a guilty plea to the charge of carrying a concealed firearm. At sentencing, the court orally classified Lester as a youthful offender, withheld adjudication, placed him on probation for three years, and imposed a special condition that he serve six months in a juvenile facility, Britt Halfway House. An inconsistent written order followed which adjudicated Lester guilty of committing a delinquent act, committed him to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (H.R.S.) for placement in an appropriate program, recommended placement in Britt Halfway House, and assessed costs of $232.50.
Lester 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 238 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). In the instant case, the state has not conceded that all provisions of the written sentence were in error, and, therefore, the orally pronounced sentence cannot be substituted for the written order. Absent concession by the state, a conflict between the written order and the oral pronouncement requires a factual resolution by the trial court. Wilkins, supra.
Furthermore, the oral sentence was defective in that, while the court attempted to classify Lester as a youthful offender, it failed to make a written finding, pursuant to section 39.111(7)(e), Florida Statutes, as to Lester’s suitability for adult sanctions. The oral sentence also placed Lester under the supervision of H.R.S. rather than the Department of Corrections in contravention of section 958.04, Florida Statutes.
Lester also argues that the assessment of costs must be stricken since the court awarded costs without providing him with adequate notice and affording him an opportunity to be heard. We agree that the assessment of costs in the written order was erroneous. Bull v. State, 548 So. 2d 1103 (Fla.1989); Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984). Lester had neither notice nor opportunity to object-since the assessment of costs first appeared in the written order. On remand, the trial court shall choose between committing Lester to H.R.S. for an indeterminate period of time pursuant to section 39.111, Florida Statutes (1987), or sentencing him as a youthful offender under Chapter 958 of the Florida Statutes, if appropriate, after a disposition hearing pursuant to section 39.111(7). Hammonds v. State, 543 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Costs may be imposed provided Lester is given proper notice and an opportunity to object.
Sentence VACATED; cost judgment STRICKEN; and REMANDED.
COBB and COWART, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Traman D. Tory v. State, 686 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…, 596 So. 2d 811, 812 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Tannihill v. State, 559 So. 2d 608, 609 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Moreover, an oral pronouncement will most certainly prevail where the state concedes that the written sentence was in error. See Lester v. State, 563 So. 2d 178, 179 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). However, absent concession by the state, a conflict between the written order and the oral pronouncement requires a factual resolution by the trial court. Id. In this ease, appellee does not concede error. In fact, appelle…
-
Marlette Evette Cleveland v. State, 617 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…ly pronounced at sentencing. The state has not conceded error. Therefore the sentence is vacated and the cause is remanded to the trial court for resolution of the discrepancy. See O’Neal v. State, 566 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 5th DCA1990); Lester v. State, 563 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 5th DCA1990). In both Lester (absent concession by the State) and O’Neal, sentences were vacated and the cases were remanded to the trial judge because a factual dispute existed as to what sentence the judge actually intended. These cases are…
-
Routh v. Routh, 565 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…the clerk in partial payment of child support. However, the written Judgment and Sentence, in contrast, indicated that Routh had $70 on his person when he was remanded. This is a criminal contempt proceeding, and the principle of Lester v. State, 563 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), is applicable, Since the written judgment conflicts with the oral pronouncements at sentencing, a factual resolution of the conflict by the trial court is required. Wilkins v. State, 543 So. 2d 800 (Fla 5th DCA), rev. denied, 55…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1984)
- Bull v. State, 548 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 1989)
- 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)
- Hammonds v. State, 543 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Harden v. State, 557 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Symone Rene Mott v. State, 489 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)