ERIC TANNEHILL, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
ERIC TANNEHILL, APPELLANT,
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
712 So. 2d 438
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1998)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Upon the State’s proper confession of error and our own review of the record, we reverse the defendant’s sentences in Case Nos. 91-621 and 91-629 and remand for re-sentencing consistent with the trial court’s oral pronouncement that all of the defendant’s sentences would be served concurrent with each other and concurrent with any other sentence the defendant is presently serving, specifically Case Nos. 92-913 and 92-30210.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mehboob Jivanjee v. State, 724 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…n sentencing order later rendered, however provided for a 50-year term of imprisonment, with the 15-year mandatory 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, def…
-
Brimage v. State, 745 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…day in state prison, not as a habitual offender, but rather concurrently with a habitual offender sentence imposed in another case. 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). Moreover, a trial court cannot habitualize a defendant on a case if it did not, at the time of the original sentencing, have the option of imposing a habitual offender sentence. See Snead v. State, 616 So. 2d 964 (Fla.1993). Re…
-
Turner v. State, 731 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…PER CURIAM. This cause is remanded to the trial court to conform the written sentencing orders to the trial court’s oral pronouncements. See Tannehill v. State, 712 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). Specifically, any reference that the sentences are coterminous must be removed from the written sentencing orders. Remanded.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence