DARRELL CHARLES BROWN, 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.
The court held that a written sentence must conform to the oral pronouncement, and where it varies, the written sentence is vacated and remanded for correction.
The written sentence imposed by the trial court differed from the oral sentence pronounced by the judge regarding the length of probation.…
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 Sentencing Disparity cases and more on FLexlaw
ERVIN, Judge.
Appellee’s motion to dismiss is denied, because an issue has been raised as to the legality of appellant’s sentence in Bay County Circuit Court Case No. 89-2702, namely the inconsistency between the oral pronouncement and the written sentence. See Pyle v. State, 596 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
Appellant’s sentence in Case No. 89-2702 is vacated, because the written sentence (two and one-half years of incarceration followed by two and one-half years of probation) varies from the trial judge’s oral sentencing pronouncement (two and one-half years of incarceration followed by three years of probation). The case is therefore remanded with directions to correct the written sentence so as to conform to the oral pronouncement. Timmons v. State, 453 So. 2d 143, 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Collins v. State, 546 So. 2d 123, 123 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Ferguson v. State, 545 So. 2d 505, 505 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Camp v. State, 501 So. 2d 81, 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).
Appellee’s motion to dismiss is DENIED; appellant’s sentence in Case No. 89-2702 is VACATED and the case REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BOOTH and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Evans v. State, 625 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…lorida Statutes (1989). Because the written sentence deviates from the judge’s oral pronouncement, we remand to the trial court for correction of the written sentence. See, e.g., Mondello v. State, 599 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Brown v. State, 599 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Timmons v. State, 453 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). [*917] On the fourth and final issue, the appellant’s due process and equal protection challenges to the habitual felony offender statute have been rejected by the supreme co…
-
Marshall v. State, 652 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…evails over the [*975] written judgment and sentence form. See, e.g., Armstead v. State, 612 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). The written sentence must be remanded for correction to conform to the trial judge’s oral pronouncement. See Brown v. State, 599 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). ERVIN and MINER, JJ., concur.…
-
Mondello v. State, 599 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…eof, two years of community control with the condition that he serve ten months in county jail). Appellant’s sentence is therefore remanded for correction of the written sentence. Timmons v. State, 453 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Brown v. State, 599 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Pyle v. State, 596 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). The conviction is AFFIRMED; the sentence is REMANDED for correction. WIGGINTON and KAHN, JJ., concur.'…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Timmons v. State, 453 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Pyle v. State, 596 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Collins v. State, 546 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Camp v. State, 501 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Ferguson v. State, 545 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)