WILLIAM BRIMAGE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Habitual Offender Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant argues, and the state correctly concedes, that the trial court erred in sentencing him as a habitual offender upon revocation of probation in case numbers 89-31657 and 88-45148A. The written sentencing orders do not reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement regarding case numbers 89-31657 and 88-45148A, where appellant was sentenced to one year and one 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).
Reversed and remanded with directions to strike the habitual offender designation in the written sentences for case numbers 89-31657 and 88-45148A.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gonzalez v. State, 854 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…ncing order must conform to the trial court’s oral pronounce [*848] ment of sentence,” the order under review must be reversed and remanded for deletion of the PRR sentence and concomitant minimum mandatory term as to Count II. See Brimage v. State, 745 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).1 . This resolution makes it unnecessary to address the remainder of Gonzalez' arguments. We also decline (without prejudice) Gonzalez’ invitation to rule on the legality of the sentences imposed in ten other cases since the p…
Authorities Cited
- Snead v. State, 616 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 1993)
- Tannehill v. State, 712 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Ross v. City OF Miami & Ga. Dep't of Human Res., 712 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)