DILIP K. SILVA, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed Silva's convictions for murder, robbery, and assault but remanded to correct written sentencing documents to conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement regarding concurrent and consecutive sentences.
The court's oral pronouncement of sentence controls over the written sentencing document when they conflict.
[1] The trial court's oral pronouncement of sentence controls over conflicting provisions in the written sentencing document and requires remand for correction.
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“The court's oral pronouncement controls over the written sentencing document.”
Court explaining the rule that governs conflicts between oral and written sentencing pronouncements.
Silva was convicted of first degree murder, armed robbery, attempted armed robbery, false imprisonment, and aggravated assault on law enforcement offi…
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 Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Dilip K. Silva appeals his convictions and sentences for first degree murder, armed robbery, attempted armed robbery, false imprisonment, and aggravated assault on law enforcement officers. We affirm the convictions and the sentences imposed, but remand for correction of the judgments and sentences to conform to the oral pronouncement.
Although the trial court orally pronounced that Silva’s life sentences for Counts II, III, and IV would be served concurrently with each other and consecutively to the Count I life sentence for murder, the written judgments and sentences incorrectly provide that these sentences are to run concurrently with the sentence for Count I. For Counts V through X, the trial court orally imposed fifteen-year sentences, concurrent with each other, concurrent with the sentences for Counts II, III, and IV, and consecutive to the sentence for Count I. However, the judgments and sentences incorrectly provide that these fifteen-year sentences are to run concurrently with each other and consecutively to the Count I sentence, omitting any reference to Counts II, III arid IV. “The court’s oral pronouncement controls over the written sentencing document.” Ricks v. State, 725 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)(citing A.S. v. State, 714 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)).
Accordingly, we remand for correction of the written judgments and sentences to conform to the oral pronouncements.
FULMER, A.C.J., and WHATLEY, J„ and DANAHY, PAUL W., (Senior) Judge, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ricks v. State, 725 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- A.S. v. State, 714 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)