HAROLD J. STRICKLAND, JR., 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.
Harold Strickland appealed sentences imposed following his no contest pleas to multiple worthless check charges. The court affirmed the convictions but reversed the sentences and probation order due to discrepancies between the trial court's oral pronouncements and the written sentences and restitution amounts.
The convictions are affirmed, but the sentences and probation order are reversed and remanded for resentencing and correction of restitution amounts due to the inability to reconcile the numerous discrepancies between oral pronouncements and written orders.
[1] Discrepancies between a trial court's oral sentencing pronouncement and the written judgment require reversal and remand for resentencing.
[2] A written order of probation containing restitution amounts must clearly identify the associated case numbers and victims.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 record reflects discrepancies between the trial court's oral pronouncement, the written sentences, and the written order of probation.”
Establishes the core problem that motivated the reversal—misalignment between what was orally pronounced and what was written down
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStrickland entered no contest pleas in numerous cases involving primarily worthless check charges. The trial court's written sentences contained discr…
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 Vs. Written Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
FULMER, Acting Chief Judge.
Harold Strickland entered pleas of no contest in numerous cases primarily involving worthless check charges. He now appeals the sentences imposed. Strickland asserts, and the State concedes, that in some of the cases the written sentences do not comport with the oral pronouncement. We affirm the convictions, but reverse the sentences and the order of probation containing restitution amounts.
The record reflects discrepancies between the trial court’s oral pronouncement, the written sentences, and the written order of probation. For example, written sentences were entered for misdemeanor cases that had previously been consolidated with the felony cases but for which the trial court did not orally impose sentence because the cases were being returned to the county court. A single order of probation was entered listing thirty-seven separate amounts of restitution with reference to victims but no case numbers. In his brief, Strickland charted discrepancies between the amount of restitution orally pronounced and the amount set forth in the order of probation. Strickland also contends that restitution was ordered for vie- tims not reflected in any information filed against him. Without identifying specific errors, the State concedes discrepancies between the oral pronouncements of the trial court and the written sentences. Because of the large number of cases involved, the lack of clarity in the sentencing hearing and the lack of case numbers in the probation order, we are unable to determine precisely how the discrepancies should be reconciled. We, therefore, reverse the sentences and the order of probation and remand for resentencing and correction, where necessary, of the restitution amounts ordered.
Convictions affirmed; sentences reversed and remanded with directions.
WHATLEY and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.