D.F., JR., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse First Degree Felony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, D.F., Jr., challenges an order adjudicating him delinquent and sentencing him as a serious or habitual juvenile offender pursuant to section 39.01(46)(a), Florida Statutes (1993). We find no merit in the appellant’s contentions and, accordingly, affirm the trial court’s adjudication and its determination that the appellant qualified as a serious or habitual juvenile offender. We must remand, however, for the purpose of correcting a scrivener’s error in the court’s written order. At the appellant’s hearing, the court found the appellant guilty of aggravated battery with a weapon, a first degree felony. §§ 784.045, 775.087(l)(b), Fla.Stat. (1993). The court’s written order indicates that he was found guilty of aggravated battery, a second degree felony. § 784.045. When there is a difference between a court’s oral pronouncement and a written order, the oral pronouncement controls. Reber v. State, 611 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Upon remand, the court should correct the written order to reflect that the appellant was found guilty of a first degree felony.
Remanded with instructions.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and BLUE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Denson v. State, 711 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…); Belton v. State, 673 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).5 Second, the five-year increase in the term of imprisonment in the written sentence clearly violates the rule that the written sentence must conform to the oral pronouncement. See D.F. v. State, 650 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Prior to the Criminal Appeal Reform Act, we would have ordered the trial court to correct both of these errors, even though they were unpre-served. III. THE CRIMINAL APPEAL REFORM ACT The legislative and judicial efforts to ref…
-
B.C. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 864 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…der did not withhold adjudication of dependency, as had been agreed at the arraignment hearing. Where there is a difference between the court’s oral pronouncement and its written order, the oral pronouncement controls. See D.F., Jr. v. [*489] State, 650 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). The Department concedes that the scrivener’s error should be corrected to reflect the agreement of the parties and the court’s oral pronouncement. To the extent that the order needs clarification, we remand the matter to the tria…
-
A.S. v. State, 714 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…be served concurrently, the written commitment order provides that the sentences are to run consecutively. ‘When there is a difference between a court’s oral pronouncement and a written [*1039] order, the oral pronouncement controls.” D.F. v. State, 650 So. 2d 1097, 1098 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Accordingly, we remand for correction of the written order to conform to the oral pronouncement that the sentences are to run concurrently. Remanded with instructions. ALTENBERND and FULMER, JJ„ concur.…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Reber v. State, 611 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)