VINCENT J. STEPHENS, 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.
The court held that the judgment must be corrected regarding armed burglary and kidnapping charges due to state concessions.
Defendant sought post-conviction relief, alleging errors in his adjudication for armed burglary and the factual basis for a kidnapping charge. The sta…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant brought a six ground motion for post conviction relief. We remand for correction as to grounds two and six, and affirm the order of the lower court as to all other grounds.
In ground two of his motion, the defendant alleged that the armed burglary charged in count nine of the information never occurred. The state concedes that the written judgment indicates that the court adjudicated the defendant for armed burglary when in fact the defendant was neither adjudicated nor sentenced on this count. Thus, although defendant need not be present, remand is appropriate for correction of this judgment. See Dunkin v. State, 706 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).
In ground six of his motion, the defendant alleged that there was no factual basis to find that he committed the crime of kidnapping in count twelve. The state concedes that they advised the trial court that defendant was not charged in count twelve, and that the lower court did not accept defendant’s plea of nolo contendere to this count. Therefore, on remand the written judgment and the corrected sentence should be modified to reflect the court’s oral pronouncement. See Brown v. State, 423 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dailey v. State, 791 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…fenses, a trial court should impose a separate sentence for each offense.” Rogers v. State, 730 So. 2d 716, 717 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Finally, the written sentencing order must conform with the trial court’s oral pronouncement. See Stephens v. State, 747 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Dunkin v. State, 706 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). [*589] Because the trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence fails to specifically identify the different counts and the sentence for each, we vacate the sentence imposed and…
Authorities Cited
- Fininvest Invs., Ltd. v. Metro. Dade Cnty. & Malvolio, N.V., 423 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Earnest James Brown v. State, 423 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- M.B. v. State, 706 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Dunkin v. State, 706 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)