MARCUS W. TAYLOR, 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.
Marcus Taylor appealed his guilty plea judgment and sentence for grand theft and robbery, contending that the written judgments failed to conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement of sentence. The appellate court remanded the case for correction of four specific discrepancies between the written and oral sentences.
The court held that the written judgments and sentences did not conform to the oral pronouncement and remanded the case with directions to correct four specific discrepancies: removing habitual offender designation, clarifying that the robbery sentence runs consecutively to the grand theft sentence, amending the restitution condition to reflect that the trial court will determine the amount at a hearing, and striking the condition requiring monthly payments to First Step of Bay Co., Inc.
[1] A court unlawfully delegates its judicial responsibility when it empowers a probation officer or commission to determine the amount of restitution owed by a defendant.
[2] A defendant may waive the right to challenge the method of restitution determination by suggesting or agreeing to that method at sentencing.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“written judgments and sentences must be conformed to the oral pronouncement, Rowland v. State, 548 So.2d 812, 814 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that written sentences must match what the trial court orally pronounced
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn June 1991, Taylor pleaded guilty to grand theft and robbery in two separate cases. The state initially sought habitual felony offender classificati…
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 Judgment And Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Marcus W. Taylor has appealed from portions of the judgment and sentence filed after his guilty plea to grand theft and robbery, alleging that they do not conform to the oral pronouncement of sentence. We remand for correction of the written judgments and sentences to conform to the oral pronouncement.
In June 1991, Taylor pled guilty to grand theft (Case No. 91-754) and robbery (Case No. 91-1222). Although the state initially sought habitual felony offender classification, it later declined to do so when it became apparent that Taylor did not have the requisite prior felony convictions. The trial court orally sentenced Taylor in 91-754 to 5 years incarceration, and in 91-1222 to 4 years incarceration plus 10 years probation, to run consecutively to the sentence in 91-754; Taylor was not sentenced as an habitual felony offender. As conditions of probation, the trial court orally imposed 1000 hours of community service, and “restitution in an amount to be determined at a subsequent hearing.”
The written judgments and sentences were inconsistent with the oral pronouncement in the following respects: 1) habitual offender status is indicated as to both cases; 2) the sentence in 91-754 states that it will run consecutively to that in 91-1222, resulting in two periods of incarceration interrupted by probation; 3) the written probation order in 91-1222 delegates the determination of the amount of restitution to Taylor’s probation officer; and 4) the written probation order imposes the condition of payment of $1.00 monthly to First Step of Bay Co., Inc. Taylor argues that these judgments and sentences must be conformed to the oral pronouncement, Rowland v. State, 548 So. 2d 812, 814 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), and the state agrees.
We therefore remand this case for correction of the written judgments and sentences to conform to the oral pronouncement as follows: 1) strike all indication that Taylor was classified an habitual felony offender; 2) strike the statement in 91-754 that its sentence is to run consecutively to that in 91-1222, and state clearly in 91-1222 that its sentence is to run consecutively to 91-754, see Simmons v. State, 594 So. 2d 853, 854 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); 3) amend Condition 13 of the written proba tion order to indicate that restitution shall be paid in an amount to be determined by the trial court at a subsequent restitution hearing, see Walls v. State, 609 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); and 4) strike Condition 11 of the written probation order requiring payment of $1.00 monthly to First Step of Bay Co., Inc., see Jennings v. State, 595 So. 2d 251, 253 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
Remanded with directions.
JOANOS, C.J., and ZEHMER and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. State, 658 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…for Count 7, and fail to mention Counts 1 and 6. Therefore, we reverse the judgment and sentences for Counts 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 and remand with directions to enter a judgment and sentences in accordance with the oral pronouncement.1 Taylor v. State, 615 So. 2d 230, 230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED for further proceedings. ERVIN, LAWRENCE and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur. . Based on our disposition of this case, we deny the state’s motion to dismiss the appeal for la…
-
Leelyn Drye v. State, 691 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…er. On remand, the trial court is directed to amend that condition to provide that appellant shall pay the victim’s future counseling costs in an amount to be determined by the trial court following a restitution hearing. See, e.g., Taylor v. State, 615 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions. ALLEN and MICKLE, JJ., concur.…
-
Friedman v. State, 668 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…ne year county jail on this very charge. We reverse and remand for correction of the written judgment and sentence to conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement at sentencing. Davis v. State, 658 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Taylor v. State, 615 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Accordingly, we AFFIRM in part, and REVERSE and REMAND in part. MINER, MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Rowland v. State, 548 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Jennings v. State, 595 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Walls v. State, 609 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Simmons v. State, 594 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)