BANY BEAUDRY, 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.
The court held that discrepancies between the oral pronouncement and written sentence require remand.
The defendant was convicted of aggravated assault and grand theft. The trial court's oral sentencing pronouncement differed from the written sentence …
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 Written Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
W. SHARP, Judge.
Beaudry appeals from the sentences he received after being convicted of two counts of aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer with a deadly weapon,1 and one count of grand theft of a motor vehicle.2 The trial court orally announced Beaudry would be sentenced to prison for 120 months for one of the assault counts, with three years on probation for each of the other counts, concurrent with each other. However, the written sentence imposed was 127 months.
The state concedes that the oral pronouncement and written sentence do not conform to one another. Additionally, the state points out that the order of probation indicated that the prison sentence is to be served for the grand theft count, rather than the aggravated assault count. We cannot reconcile these disparities. •
Accordingly, we remand this cause to the trial court in order to clarify and conform the order of probation and the oral sentence announced with the written ones. See Major v. State, 652 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Moore v. State, 623 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Gould v. State, 675 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 5th. DCA 1996); Higginbotham v. State, 659 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Marchand v. State, 546 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Wilkins v. State, 543 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 554 So,2d 1170 (Fla.1989).
REMAND to correct sentences.
COBB and GOSHORN, JJ., concur. . §§ 784.021(1)(a), 784.07(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (1995).
. § 812.014(2)(c)6, Fla. Stat. (1995).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Wilkins v. State, 543 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Moore v. State, 623 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Marchand v. State, 546 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Major v. State, 652 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Gould v. State, 675 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- Higginbotham v. State, 659 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)