RIGOBERTO NODAL, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Mandatory Minimum Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendant Rigoberto Nodal from judgments of conviction and sentences for trafficking in marijuana and conspiracy to traffic in marijuana entered after a negotiated plea. We find no merit in any of the points raised by the defendant on appeal, save one. We conclude that the trial court committed reversible error in entering a written sentence imposing a three-year mandatory minimum sentence on the defendant because it does not conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence in open court in which a three-year mandatory minimum sentence was not imposed. The law is clear that the written sentence entered in a criminal case must conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence in open court. See, e.g., White v. State, 624 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Urquiaga v. State, 624 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Kord v. State, 508 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).
The final judgment of convictions and sentences under review are affirmed, save for the imposition of the three-year mandatory minimum sentence imposed in this case, which sentence is hereby stricken.
Affirmed as modified.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Murguia v. State, 711 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…iling to enter a written order that conformed to its oral pronouncements at the sentencing hearing. See Whitehead v. State, 654 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding that court’s written sentence must conform to oral pronouncement); Nodal v. State, 650 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (same). Upon remand, the trial court shall enter a written sentence that conforms with its oral pronouncement that defendant is to receive credit for time previously served on probation. The written order shall further reflect tha…
-
Whitehead v. State, 654 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…the foregoing reasons, by imposing the sentences in the written sentencing order. “The law is clear that the written sentence entered in a criminal case must conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence in open court.” Nodal v. State, 650 So. 2d 696, 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); see also Verble v. State, 636 So. 2d 890, 891 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Trueblood v. State, 635 So. 2d 1024, 1025 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); White v. [*654] State, 624 So. 2d 811, 812 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Armstead v. State, 612 So. 2d 6…
-
Williams v. State, 682 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…rmed. However, as the State properly concedes, because the written sentencing order does not “conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence in open court,” Whitehead v. State, 654 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)(quoting Nodal v. State, 650 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)), the sentencing order is reversed and this case remanded for entry of a sentencing order that conforms to the trial court’s oral pronouncement. Affirmed, in part; reversed in part, and remanded with directions.…
Authorities Cited
- Kord v. State, 508 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Friedberg v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 624 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Urquiaga v. State, 624 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)