STEVEN MARTINDALE, 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.
Defendant appealed his sentences for probation violations, claiming inconsistencies between the trial court's oral pronouncements and the written sentences. The Fourth District Court of Appeal addressed the proper method for resolving such discrepancies and remanded for the trial court to clarify its sentencing intent.
The oral pronouncement generally prevails over inconsistent written sentences unless the discrepancy results from a clerical error in calculating jail credits. Where the written sentence does not reflect the trial court's intent as expressed orally, the case must be remanded for the trial court to clarify its sentencing intent and correct the written order accordingly.
[1] When a written sentencing order is inconsistent with the oral pronouncement, the oral pronouncement generally prevails unless the discrepancy is due to a clerical error i…
[2] A written sentence must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement if the written sentence does not reflect the trial court's intent at sentencing.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“When a written order is inconsistent with an oral pronouncement, the oral pronouncement generally must prevail unless the oral pronouncement is incorrect due to a clerical error such as in the computation of jail credits.”
Establishes the general rule that oral pronouncements control over written orders in sentencing, except for clerical errors in jail credit calculation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant Martindale received sentences in two cases (Nos. 90-315 and 89-460) with previously-imposed sentences of 10 years and 3½ years respectively.…
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 Clerical Error In Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PARIENTE, Judge.
In this appeal from defendant’s sentences for probation violations, defendant asserts that there are inconsistencies between the sentences orally pronounced and the written sentences. The state asserts that there are no inconsistencies — both the oral pronouncements and the written sentences required that appellant receive jail terms with credit for time served and unforfeited gain time.
When a written order is inconsistent with an oral pronouncement, the oral pronouncement generally must prevail unless the oral pronouncement is incorrect due to a clerical error such as in the computation of jail credits. See Harmon v. State, 599 So. 2d 754, 756-57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). Such an error can occur where the trial court incorrectly calculates jail credit at the time of sentencing, but the written sentence correctly sets forth the amount of time actually served. Id. However, where the intent of the oral pronouncement is not reflected in the written sentence, remand for correction of the written sentence is mandated. See Marshall v. State, 652 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).
In this case, we cannot tell from the record before us whether there are inconsistencies between the oral pronouncements and the written sentences. If the amount of time actually served plus unforfeited gain time in Case Nos. 90-315 and 89 — 460 equals the previously-imposed sentences in those cases of 10 years and 3½ years, respectively, then there are no inconsistencies. If not, then the inconsistencies between the oral pronouncements and the written sentences must be resolved by reference to the trial court’s intent at sentencing. If the intent of the trial court was to impose a sentence of 12 years in Case No. 90-315 and 4½ years in Case No. 89-460, and to award appellant only time actually served and unforfeited gain time, then the written sentences accurately reflect the oral pronouncements. If, however, the intent of the trial court was to impose a net sentence of only 2 years in Case No. 90-315 and only 1 year in Case No. 89-460, then the written sentences must be amended to conform to the oral pronouncements. REMANDED FOR PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.
GUNTHER, C.J., and STONE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Columbus Rickey Ashley v. State, 850 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 2003)…674 So. 2d at 126; Driver v. State, 710 So. 2d 652, 653 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Generally, the oral pronouncement prevails unless the oral pronouncement is in error due to a clerical error such as the calculation of jail credit. See Martindale v. State, 678 So. 2d 883, 884 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).3 We recognize that the trial court’s failure to state during its oral pronouncement of sentence that it was sentencing Ashley as a habitual violent felony offender may have been a simple mistake. However, based on the prio…
-
State v. Akins, 69 So. 3d 261 (Fla. 2011)…uble jeopardy. Mann, 851 So. 2d at 903. As this Court noted in Ashley II: Generally, the oral pronouncement prevails unless the oral pronouncement is in error due to a clerical error such as the calculation of jail credit. See Martindale v. State, 678 So. 2d 883, 884 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).[n.3] [n.3]. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) specifically provides that a motion to correct a scrivener's error may be filed by the [*272] State. A scrivener's error literally refers to a written error. The defi…
-
Desmond R. Gillen v. State, 696 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…ated before the imposition of this sentence. Under these circumstances, remand for correction of the written sentence is necessary because the written sentence does not reflect the intent of the orally pronounced sentence. See Martindale v. State, 678 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (remand for correction of written sentence is required where intent of oral pronouncement is not reflected in the written sentence); Davis v. State, 677 So. 2d 1366 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (written sentence must conform to trial cour…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Harmon v. State, 599 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Marshall v. State, 652 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)