WILLIE J. WALKER, 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.
Willie J. Walker appeals his convictions for burglary of a dwelling and grand theft. The Florida appellate court affirmed the convictions but found discrepancies between the trial court's orally pronounced sentences and restitution award versus the written sentencing documents, requiring remand for correction.
The court affirmed the convictions and judgments but reversed and remanded the sentencing order to correct a discrepancy whereby the written order imposed 25 years imprisonment for grand theft instead of the orally pronounced concurrent 10-year term. The restitution order was also vacated and remanded because it awarded $702 in restitution ($57 for lost income and $645 for stolen property and damages) rather than the $360 for property value stated at the sentencing hearing.
[1] A written sentencing order must conform to the trial court's orally pronounced sentence.
[2] A restitution order must conform to the trial court's orally pronounced restitution award.
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“the trial court's orally pronounced sentence and restitution award are at variance with the court's written sentencing orders possesses merit”
Identifies the primary error on appeal—the discrepancy between oral pronouncements and written documents
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWalker was convicted of burglary of a dwelling and grand theft. At sentencing, the trial court found him to be an habitual felony offender and orally …
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 Habitual Felony Offender Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
ANTOON, Judge.
We have for review the judgments and sentences imposed upon Willie J. Walker (defendant) for the crimes of burglary of a dwelling1 and grand theft2. The defendant raises three claims of error, but only the assertion that the trial court’s orally pronounced sentence and restitution award are at variance with the court’s written sentencing orders possesses merit. We must remand this matter to the trial court for correction of these sentencing documents.
At the sentencing hearing, the trial court determined that the defendant was an habitual felony offender. The court then stated that the defendant was to serve a twenty-five-year term of imprisonment for the crime of burglary of a dwelling and a concurrent ten-year term of imprisonment for the crime of grand theft. However, the written sentencing order reflects a concurrent sentence of twenty-five years’ imprisonment for the grand theft conviction. The sentence of twenty-five years’ imprisonment must be stricken and, on remand, a proper sentence of ten years’ imprisonment must be imposed on the defendant’s grand theft conviction. See Jackson v. State, 463 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), rev. denied, 482 So. 2d 345 (Fla.1986).
There was also a disparity between the orally pronounced restitution award and the award appearing in the written restitution order. At trial, the victim specially described the items taken and stated that the total value of the property was $360. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court stated that restitution would be awarded “for the value of the property which was taken in this ease and not recovered.” However, the written restitution order prepared at the conclusion of the proceedings provides that the defendant must pay $57 “for income lost as a result of the offense” and “$645 for items stolen and damages.” Thus, the order setting restitution must also be stricken because it fails to conform with the trial court’s oral pronouncement. See Williams v. State, 645 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Accordingly, we vacate the restitution order with directions that, on remand, a proper restitution order be entered.
JUDGMENTS AFFIRMED; SENTENCES AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part; CAUSE REMANDED.
GOSHORN and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . § 810.02, Fla. Stat. (1995).
. § 812.014, Fla. Stat. (1995).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
K.F. and D.C. v. State, 746 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…ort the trial court’s restitution decision, we affirm with regard to this issue. Nevertheless, a written restitution order must conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement. See Brown v. State, 605 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Walker v. State, 701 So. 2d 401, 402 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Therefore, we must remand for correction of the written restitution order to reflect the amount orally pronounced by the court. Similarly, the state properly concedes the cause must be remanded for correction of the disposi…
-
Harrison Hampton, Jr. v. State, 711 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…The written sentencing order indicates that the defendant was sentenced as an habitual felony offender for “Mounts I, II, III.” Generally, a trial court’s oral pronouncement controls over a conflicting written sentencing order. See Walker v. State, 701 So. 2d 401, 402 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). However, because the trial court’s oral pronouncement in this case does not clearly indicate what the trial court intended, [*202] this ease must be remanded so that the trial court can clarify whether the defendant was sen…
Authorities Cited
- Jackson v. State, 463 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Williams v. State, 645 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- State v. Jackson, 482 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 1986)