ERNESTOR ENCHAUTEGUI, 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.
The court held that when a written sentencing order conflicts with the oral pronouncement, and the State does not concede error, the case must be remanded for the trial court to clarify the sentences.
The defendant was sentenced in four cases, with the oral pronouncement indicating four-year sentences as a habitual offender, but the written orders r…
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 Habitual Offender Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
WHATLEY, Acting Chief Judge.
Ernestor Enchautegui appeals his judgments and sentences in several cases. We affirm his judgments without discussion. However, we reverse his sentences in four cases because the written sentencing orders do not conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement.
The transcript of the sentencing hearing reflects that the trial court sentenced En-chautegui to four years in prison as a habitual offender in case numbers 96-2463F, 96-2464F, 96-2465F, and 96-2466F. The sentences are to be served concurrently.
However, the written sentencing orders reflect that Enchautegui was sentenced to 40 years in prison as a habitual offender for the above four cases.
The State argues that the trial court orally pronounced sentences of 40 years in prison and that the discrepancy is the result of an error by the court reporter. An oral pronouncement will most certainly prevail when the State concedes that the written sentence is in error. See Tory v. State, 686 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
However, where the State does not concede such error, a conflict between the oral pronouncement and the written order requires a factual resolution by the trial court. Id. Here, the State does not concede error.
Therefore, this cause must be remanded to the trial court to clarify the sentences imposed and to enter such corrected sentencing orders as may be appropriate. See Manual v. State, 547 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (holding that where the written judgment and sentence do not conform to the oral pronouncement, on remand, the State may attempt to establish that the error was caused by the court reporter). Enchautegui’s judgments and sentences are otherwise affirmed.
Affirmed in part; remanded with directions to resolve conflict between the written sentencing orders and the oral pronouncement in case numbers 96-2463F, 96-2464F, 96-2465F, and 96-2466F. NORTHCUTT and GREEN, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Blocker v. State, 968 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…ses in which a possible error in the transcript of the sentencing hearing has resulted in a remand to the trial court to determine whether the written sentence or the transcript reflected the true oral pronouncement. See, e.g., Enchautegui v. State, 749 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Manual v. State, 547 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Gonzales v. State, 488 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), disapproved of on other grounds in Frey v. State, 708 So. 2d 918, 920 n. 3 (Fla.1998); Robinson v. State, 407 So. 2d 1038…
-
Parsons v. State, 905 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…tence stating: “You’ll be sentenced to a year and a day in a Florida State Prison.” An inconsistency among the oral pronouncement of sentence and the two written sentences requires a factual resolution by the trial court. See Enchautegui v. State, 749 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Therefore, the order of the trial court must be reversed and remanded with directions for the trial court to clarify the sentences imposed and to enter such corrected sentencing orders as may be appropriate. Reversed and remand…
-
Cunningham v. State, 818 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…owever, when the State does not concede that the written order is in error, remand is appropriate for the trial court to make a factual determination to resolve the conflict between the written order and the oral pronouncement. Enchautegui v. State, 749 So. 2d 550, 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Manual v. State, 547 So. 2d 726, 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). We conclude that remand is appropriate in order that the trial court may resolve the discrepancy. Accordingly, we reverse the sentence and remand with directions for…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Traman D. Tory v. State, 686 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Manual v. State, 547 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)