JOSEPH GREGORY HAMBRICK, 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.
Joseph Hambrick appealed his sentence for grand theft and violation of community control, challenging whether his new sentence should run consecutively or concurrently with his reinstated probation and whether probation was properly included within the agreed-upon sentencing cap. The court affirmed the sentence but remanded for clarification of the judgment to reflect the trial judge's oral pronouncement that probation runs concurrently with the new substantive sentence.
The court held that the new sentence runs concurrently with the reinstated probation on the original offense, as indicated by the trial judge's oral pronouncement at sentencing, which controls over any clerical errors in the written judgment. The court also held that probation is properly included within the agreed-upon 3¾-year cap on the original offense.
[1] An oral pronouncement of a sentence controls over any clerical errors found in the written judgment.
[2] A sentence for a new offense may run concurrent with a previously imposed probationary period.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 probation has never stopped, the probation has never stopped. Its running right now and it will run while you're in prison.”
Trial judge's oral pronouncement at sentencing establishing that probation runs concurrently with the new sentence, which controls over any conflicting written judgment language.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1987, Hambrick was convicted of grand theft and dealing in stolen property, sentenced to 2½ years incarceration followed by 10 years probation. In …
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 Clerical Error In Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
[*398] HARRIS, Judge.
Joseph Hambrick appeals his sentence for grand theft and violation of community-control.
In 1987 Hambrick was charged with grand theft and dealing in stolen property. He was convicted and sentenced to 2-½ years incarceration to be followed by 10 years probation. In 1988 he violated probation and was sentenced to 2 years community control to be followed by 13 years probation. This was an illegal sentence because the initial 2¾⅛ years incarceration together with the new probationary period of 13 years exceeded the maximum 15 years statutory period. This sentence was not appealed.
In 1989, Hambrick pled to a new grand theft charge and violation of community control in exchange for a cap of 2½ years on the new charge and 3¾⅛ years on the original offense. The court complied by sentencing Hambrick to 2¾⅛ years incarceration on the new charge, reinstating probation on the original offense, and correcting the previously entered illegal sentence by converting the 13 years probation to 10‘A years.
The court indicated in the judgment that the new sentence would run consecutive to “any active sentence being served.” Ham-brick contends that this was contrary to his plea agreement if, in fact, his incarceration and present probation run consecutive. This interpretation is clearly contrary to the expressed intention of the judge at sentencing:
The probation has never stopped, the probation has never stopped. Its running right now and it will run while you’re in prison.
Since the oral pronouncement controls over any clerical errors found in the written judgment,2 the pending sentence (original probation) runs concurrent with the new substantive sentence. The judgment should make this clear. Hambrick also contends that he did not contemplate reinstatement of probation when he agreed to a cap of 3V2 years on the original offense. Unfortunately for Hambrick, probation is within that cap.
Hambrick’s other contentions are without merit.
Sentence AFFIRMED, but REMANDED for clarification of judgment.
GOSHORN and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur. . Rule 3.800, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, permits correction of an illegal sentence at any time.
. Drumwright v. State, 572 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kutz v. Fankhanel, 608 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…o have it recognized and enforced. This action led to an appeal to this court where we upheld the lower court’s refusal to give full faith and credit to the Colorado judgment because of lack of personal jurisdiction over Kutz. See Fankhanel v. Kutz, 576 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). In 1990, before the foreign judgment suit was resolved, Fankhanel filed this suit in Orange County, Florida, to enforce past due child support which had accrued under the 1977 Florida dissolution decree and subsequent modificat…
Authorities Cited
- Hutchins v. McCLUNG, 572 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)