EARL H. ROGERS, 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 the trial court failed to fully address the appellant's claim that his sentences should have been concurrent with other sentences, not just with each other.
The appellant sought postconviction relief, arguing that the sentencing judge orally pronounced that his sentences should run concurrently with any ot…
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 Written Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
[*2] PER CURIAM.
The appellant seeks review of the denial of his motion for postconviction relief and his motion for correction of sentence. We affirm the denial of the motion for postcon-viction relief. We also affirm that portion of the order denying the motion for correction of sentence that concerns credit for time served. We reverse that portion of the order that denied relief to the appellant on his claim that his sentences were supposed to be concurrent but are actually consecutive.
The appellant argues that sentencing judge orally pronounced sentence on three charges, and stated “credit for time served any place any time, sentence concurrent with whatever sentences you may have received any place.” From discussions at the plea and sentencing hearing, it is apparent that the judge was referring to a sentence previously imposed upon the appellant in Duval County.
In denying the appellant’s motion to correct sentence, the judge found that the trial court did order the sentences to be served concurrently with each other and with any other sentence the defendant was then serving, and attached to the order the sentences. While the sentences do reflect that they are concurrent with each other, they do not reflect the sentencing judge’s oral pronouncement that the sentences were to run current with any other sentences. Accordingly, the trial court’s order fails to refute this one allegation.
We reverse and remand with directions that the court re-examine the files and records and determine whether anything therein conclusively shows that the imposed sentence conforms with the oral pronouncement regarding concurrent sentences. In the absence of such documentation, we direct the court to enter a corrected sentence.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and HALL and BLUE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brett L. Lusskin, M.D. v. Dep't of Health, 820 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…he Department of Health: The procedural history of this case is fairly long. Suffice it, to. say that this Court has previously .affirmed and reversed decisions of the Board concerning Dr. Lusskin. Lusskin v. Dep’t of Prof'l Regulation Bd. of Med., 611 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Lusskin v. Dep’t of Prof'l Regulation Bd. of Med., 731 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Upon remand from the last appeal, the Board filed an amended administrative complaint, alleging that the doctor was unable, to practice medici…
-
Ace Edmund Brule v. State, 692 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…n of probation, was not orally pronounced at sentencing. The trial court denied the motion without attaching any documentation which would refute this claim raised by Brule. See Kirkland v, State, 633 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Rogers v. State, 611 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). In all other respects the trial court’s order is affirmed. Accordingly we reverse. On remand, should the trial court again deny the motion, it must attach portions of the record which refute Brule’s claim. See Becton v. State,…