GARRETT FOSTER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Oral Pronouncement Vs. Written Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm appellant’s convictions and find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying appellant’s motion to withdraw his earlier pleas. See Lopez v. State, 536 So. 2d 226 (Fla.1988); Panno v. State, 517 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), rev. denied, 525 So. 2d 880 (Fla.1988). We also reject appellant’s claim that the habitual offender statute is unconstitutional. However, we agree with appellant that the trial court failed to make the findings required under the habitual offender statute. We also agree, as conceded by the state, that the court’s written sentence did not conform to its oral pronouncement. See State v. Ross, 447 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 456 So. 2d 1182 (Fla.1984).
Accordingly, we affirm appellant’s convictions but remand for resentencing with directions that any sentence imposed conform to, and not exceed, the oral sentences announced at the prior sentencing hearing, and that specific findings be made on the record should the trial court again consider adjudicating the appellant an habitual offender. ANSTEAD and STONE, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vantran Indus., Inc. v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 955 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…cted the eyewitness’ testimony, finding that he could not see what he claimed. On summary judgment, however, all facts and inferences must be considered in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Fenster, 785 So. 2d at 739; Bowers v. Cain, 609 So. 2d 61, 62 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). The jury, not the trial court, could reject the eyewitness’ testimony if it believed that he could not see what he claimed. See Deakter v. Menendez, 830 So. 2d 124, 127 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (stating that “[t]he court may not e…
-
Briguera v. Behr Paint Corp., 712 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…ry judgment was not filed until December 9, 1996. Because the affidavits submitted by the Brigueras do not directly contradict their deposition testimony, the trial court should not have rejected them. See Stanford, 637 So. 2d at 38; Bowers v. Cain, 609 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). The affidavits present a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the area of the porch on which Mrs. Briguera fell was wet at the time of her fall. Thus, summary judgment was inappropriate. We therefore reverse the summary…
Authorities Cited
- Lopez v. State, 536 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 1988)
- State v. Ross, 447 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Panno v. State, 517 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)