LAVERNE HENDERSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1990-12-17
No. 89-2623
ERVIN, BOOTH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
570 So. 2d 1150 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1990) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Because of the variances between the trial court’s oral pronouncements at sentencing and the provisions of the judgment and sentence and the order of probation, and because of the court’s express reliance on Heuring v. State, 539 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), we reverse and remand for resentencing in light of Heuring v. State, 559 So. 2d 207 (Fla.1990), and so that the court may remedy the inconsistencies between the sentencing pronouncements and documentation.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ERVIN, BOOTH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • State v. Bock, 659 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
    …ed where that order is at variance with the court’s oral pronouncement. Stevens v. State, 651 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Porras v. State, 651 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Wright v. State, 600 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Henderson v. State, 570 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Accordingly, when the State appealed the County Court’s order of dismissal to the Appellate Division of Circuit Court, the Circuit Court should have reversed the dismissal for the foregoing reasons; the failure to do so was a v…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw