KENNETH D. EDWARDS, 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 written sentence was erroneous because it conflicted with the oral pronouncement, and the imposition of costs was improper without notice.
Defendant was convicted of grand theft, burglary, and petit theft. The trial court orally imposed consecutive five-year sentences as an habitual felon…
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
THOMPSON, Judge.
Kenneth Edwards files this consolidated appeal contesting his convictions and sentences. The only error we find is the sentence imposed in lower case number 92-1337. We affirm his convictions, but we remand his sentence in ease number 92-1337 for correction and the reimposition of costs.
Edwards was tried and convicted in lower case number 92-1337 of grand theft, burglary of a structure and petit theft. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court orally imposed a five year sentence as an habitual felony offender for each felony. The sentences were consecutive. Edwards was sentenced to time served on the petit theft. The written sentence, however, imposed two concurrent ten year sentences, with a five year habitualized sentence for each of the two felonies. Since the oral pronouncement of sentence supercedes the written pronouncement of sentence, we remand for correction. See Harden v. State, 557 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Avery v. State, 543 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 5th DCA), review dismissed, 553 So. 2d 1164 (Fla.1989).
The court imposed costs of $250.00 for the public defender’s lien. This imposition was error. The record reveals that the trial court failed to apprise Edwards of his right to contest the amount of the assessment as mandated in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(d)(1). Therefore, the $250.00 lien is stricken without prejudice to its reimposition upon compliance with the rule. See Smith v. State, 632 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). This case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; REMANDED.
DAUKSCH and PETERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McLEOD v. State, 645 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…tion to assess fees and a hearing regarding the entitlement and amount. See Burke v. State, 642 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Craig v. State, 643 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Dewitt v. State, 639 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Edwards v. State, 639 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Griffin v. State, 636 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Fulmore v. State, 634 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Lynch v. State, 632 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Smith v. State, 632 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Fontenont v. Stat…
-
Cordell Ashford v. State, 652 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…. Under Bull v. State, 548 So. 2d 1103 (Fla.1989), therefore, the $100 fee must be stricken, without prejudice to its reimposition upon compliance with rule 3.720(d)(1). See also McLeod v. State, 645 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), Edwards v. State, 639 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), review denied, 645 So. 2d 451 (Fla.1994); Fontenot v. State, 631 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Fannin v. State, 630 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). We further note that in this case Ash-ford entered negotiated pleas to two se…
Authorities Cited
- Avery v. State, 543 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Harden v. State, 557 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Smith v. State, 632 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)