TODD MURGUIA, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Todd Murguia appeals from a probation revocation and resulting sentence. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the revocation but reversed the sentencing due to errors in the written order and the trial court's lack of jurisdiction to sentence on a nolle prossed charge.
The revocation of probation was affirmed because Murguia admitted multiple violations. However, the sentence was reversed because the written order did not conform to the oral pronouncement regarding credit for time served, and because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to sentence on the battery charge that had been nolle prossed by the State.
[1] A trial court's written sentence must conform to its oral pronouncements.
[2] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to impose a penalty on a charge that the State has previously nolle prossed.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“court's written sentence must conform to oral pronouncement”
Establishes the core requirement that written sentencing orders must match what the court said orally at sentencing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1995, Murguia pled guilty to resisting arrest with violence and was placed on probation for eighteen months; the State filed a nolle prosse on a ba…
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 Violation Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals from a revocation of probation. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part; reverse in part; and remand for further proceedings.
In 1995, defendant pled guilty to resisting arrest with violence and was placed on probation for eighteen months. The State filed a nolle prosse on a count of battery on a police officer. In September, 1996 an affidavit of probation violation was filed alleging 4 violations: failing to perform community service; failing to report to his probation officer; failing to pay costs of supervision and court costs; and testing positive for cocaine. Defendant admitted failing to report and failing to pay; he denied failing to perform community service. He admitted to testing positive for marijuana but not cocaine. The court entered a revocation of probation and imposed a two-year sentence for battery on a law enforcement officer and resisting arrest with violence, with credit for time served on probation.
However, the court’s written order of revocation of probation does not give defendant any credit for time served on probation, and finds that defendant committed each of the probation violations charged.
We affirm the revocation of probation because defendant admitted several violations of his conditions of probation.
However, the State properly concedes that the sentence must be reversed because the trial court erred in failing to enter a written order that conformed to its oral pronouncements at the sentencing hearing. See Whitehead v. State, 654 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding that court’s written sentence must conform to oral pronouncement); Nodal v. State, 650 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (same). Upon remand, the trial court shall enter a written sentence that conforms with its oral pronouncement that defendant is to receive credit for time previously served on probation. The written order shall further reflect that the court orally noted that the defendant admitted that he had tested positive for marijuana, not cocaine.
' The State also properly concedes that the trial court erred in sentencing defendant for battery on a law enforcement officer. The court was without jurisdiction to impose a penalty on a charge that the State had previously nolle prossed. See Walker v. State, 382 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (following revocation of probation, trial court is without jurisdiction to revoke probation and impose sentence on charge that State had nolle prossed). On remand, the trial court shall vacate both the adjudication of guilt on that offense and the order placing defendant on probation for that offense.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jett v. State, 722 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…al of Count II. Despite the State’s agreement to dismiss Count II in exchange for the plea on which the conviction on Count I was based, appellant was sentenced (by a different judge) on April 26, 1994, on both Counts I and II. See Murguia v. State, 711 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (reversing on grounds the “court was without jurisdiction to impose a penalty on a charge that the State had previously nolle prossed”); Walker v. State, 382 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (same). The judgment of conviction enter…
-
Mehboob Jivanjee v. State, 724 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…andatory minimum sentence. A written sentencing order must conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence. See Tannehill v. State, 712 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Denson v. State, 711 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Murguia v. State, 711 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Alvarez v. State, 698 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Ramos v. State, 682 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Accordingly, defendant’s conviction is affirmed, defendant’s sentence is vacated and the case remanded with directions to…
Authorities Cited
- Walker v. State, 382 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Rigoberto Nodal v. State, 650 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)