EDDIE L. DARBY, 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.
Court affirmed grand theft conviction and probation violation judgment but vacated the probation violation sentence due to discrepancy between oral pronouncement and written order, remanding for clarification.
A discrepancy between the trial court's oral pronouncement of sentence and the written sentencing order requires remand for clarification.
[1] A discrepancy between a trial court's oral pronouncement of sentence and its written sentencing order requires remand for clarification when the state has not conceded er…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDarby pled nolo contendere to violating his probation and committing grand theft. The trial court orally pronounced a three-year sentence for probatio…
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 Remand For Clarification cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Eddie Darby appeals his judgments and sentences which were entered by the trial court after Darby pled nolo contendere to the charges of violating his probation and committing the new substantive offense of grand theft. We affirm the judgment and sentence entered on the grand theft charge, affirm the judgment entered on the violation of probation charge, but vacate the sentence entered on the violation of probation charge.
At the sentencing hearing, the trial court orally pronounced a three-year sentence in the Department of Corrections for the violation of probation charge and a consecutive three-year sentence in the Department of Corrections followed by two years of supervised probation for the grand theft charge; however, the written sentencing order reflects that a 3/&-year sentence was imposed for the probation violation charge. Because a discrepancy exists between the trial court’s oral pronouncement and the written sentencing order regarding the probation violation charge, and because the state has not conceded error, this matter must be remanded to the trial court for clarification. See White v. State, 597 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Wilkins v. State, 543 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 554 So. 2d 1170 (Fla.1989).
AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part; REMANDED for clarification.
PETERSON, GRIFFIN and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Wilkins v. State, 543 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- White v. State, 597 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)