GEORGE A. WHITE, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Oral Pronouncement Vs. Written Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
George White appeals his conviction and sentence for sale of a counterfeit drug, a third degree felony. He claims his sentence is an illegal split sentence. We affirm the conviction but remand for conformance of the written sentence to the oral pronouncement.
The written sentence provides that the last three years of his ten-year prison sentence will be suspended and followed by three years’ probation. At sentencing, the court orally pronounced that the three suspended years would be served on probation. The oral pronouncement represents a “true split sentence” in accordance with Poore v. State, 531 So. 2d 161, 164 (Fla.1988). The written sentence must not vary from the court’s oral pronouncement. See Beal v. State, 478 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Because the written sentence may be ambiguous with respect to whether the three years’ probation will begin after seven years or after ten years, we remand for conformance of the written sentence to the oral pronouncement.
PARKER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and BLUE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Darby v. State, 639 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…ween the trial court’s oral pronouncement and the written sentencing order regarding the probation violation charge, and because the state has not conceded error, this matter must be remanded to the trial court for clarification. See White v. State, 597 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Wilkins v. State, 543 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 554 So. 2d 1170 (Fla.1989). AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part; REMANDED for clarification. PETERSON, GRIFFIN and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Poore v. State, 531 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1988)
- Beal v. State, 478 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)