ROBERT ARTHUR DAVIS, 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 convictions but reversed sentences for Counts 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 because written sentencing orders conflicted with oral pronouncement, remanding for resentencing in accordance with the trial judge's oral sentences.
When written sentencing orders conflict with the trial judge's oral pronouncement of sentence, the oral pronouncement controls and the case must be remanded for correction of the written orders.
[1] When a trial judge's oral pronouncement of sentence conflicts with the written sentencing order, the oral pronouncement controls and the written order must be corrected o…
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 intelligenceThe trial judge orally adjudicated the defendant guilty of all seven counts and imposed specific sentences (15 years on Count 7, 5 years probation on …
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 Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm appellant’s convictions on all points raised in his pro se brief, without prejudice to him filing an appropriate motion for postconviction relief.
Nevertheless, we reverse the judgment and the sentences for Counts 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6, and remand the case for sentencing, because the written forms vary from the oral pronouncement. The trial judge orally adjudicated appellant guilty of all seven counts, yet the written judgment only indicates an adjudication of guilt as to Count 7. As for the sentences, the trial judge orally imposed a 15-year prison sentence on Count 7 followed by a consecutive term of five years of probation on Count 2. On Counts 3, 4 and 5, the judge announced five-year prison terms to be served concurrent to the term imposed for Count 7, and on Counts 1 and 6, the judge imposed one-year terms concurrent to Count 7. The written sentencing orders indicate, however, five-year probationary sentences for Counts 2, 3, 4 and 5, to be served consecutive to the term imposed 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 lack of jurisdiction.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Friedman v. State, 668 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…m guilty of attempted burglary and sentenced him to one 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
- Taylor v. State, 615 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)