ROBERT KRUG, 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.
Appellant's probation revocation was affirmed, but his sentence was reversed and remanded because the written orders (42 months) conflicted with the oral pronouncement (41 months), and the oral pronouncement controls.
When an oral pronouncement of sentence is inconsistent with the written order, the oral pronouncement must prevail.
[1] When an oral pronouncement of sentence conflicts with the written sentencing order, the oral pronouncement controls and the written order must be corrected to conform.
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 intelligence“When an oral pronouncement of sentence is inconsistent with the written order, the oral pronouncement must prevail.”
Court's statement of controlling legal principle regarding sentencing discrepancies.
Appellant was orally sentenced to 41 months imprisonment for three concurrent terms based on his guilty plea to violation of probation, but the writte…
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 Oral Pronouncement Of Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In his appeal filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and In re Appellate Court Response to Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d 149 (Fla.1991), appellant challenges the revocation of his probation and his oral sentence to three concurrent terms of forty-one months imprisonment. We find error in the written orders as they pertain to appellant’s sentence, but affirm the trial court in all other aspects.
At the sentencing hearing, the appellant was orally sentenced to forty-one months imprisonment for three concurrent terms based upon appellant’s guilty plea to violation of his probation. However, the written orders indicate a sentence of forty-two months imprisonment on each of his three concurrent counts. When an oral pronouncement of sentence is inconsistent with the written order, the oral pronouncement must prevail. See Walker v. State, 593 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); see also Bogan v. State, 462 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
We, therefore, affirm as to the revocation of appellant’s probation but reverse and remand for resentencing so that the written orders may be made consistent with the oral pronouncement.
Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded for resentencing.
FRANK, A.C.J., BLUE, J., and DEMERS, DAVID A., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- In re App. Court Response to Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 1991)
- Harris v. State, 593 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Bogan v. State, 462 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- O'Byrne v. State, 462 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)