CORA L. RICHARDSON, 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 the written sentence form used by the trial court did not conform to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.986 and conflicted with the oral sentence.
The defendant pleaded guilty to solicitation and received a one-year probationary sentence with time served as a condition. The trial court used an im…
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 Time Served cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Acting Chief Judge.
Cora L. Richardson appeals her sentences for solicitation to commit prostitution. We reverse and remand to the trial court to enter sentences on forms that conform to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.986.
The State charged Ms. Richardson in two separate felony informations with deriving support from the earnings of a person engaged in prostitution. See § 796.07(4), Fla. Stat. (1999). As to each information, she entered into a plea agreement and pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of solicitation. The trial court sentenced her on July 9,1999. The trial court orally imposed concurrent one-year sentences of probation with time served in county jail as a condition of probation. These sentences are consistent with the plea agreement and authorized by law. See § 948.03(6), (7), Fla. Stat. (1999); Waite v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 681 So. 2d 901, 902 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
Unfortunately, the trial court used the infamous “memo of sentence” to sentence Ms. Richardson. See Peterson v. State, 730 So. 2d 830, 831 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (filed April 14, 1999); Grantham v. State, 735 So. 2d 525, 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (filed May 14, 1999). The clerk did not check the box on this form that makes jail a condition of probation. The phrase “time served” was scribbled in the commitment section of the form with no indication that this jail time was a condition of probation. Neither the form nor the oral pronouncement states the amount of time Ms. Richardson has already served.
Because a one-year term of probation following even a day of jail would exceed the lawful sentence for such a misdemean-or, Ms. Richardson appeals and argues that her written sentence conflicts with her oral sentence. She is correct. We reverse and remand to the trial court for the preparation of a sentence that complies with the rules of procedure adopted by the supreme court.
Reversed.
BLUE and FULMER, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Heath v. State, 840 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…county court pursuant to a document called a “memorandum of sentence,” or as it is otherwise known, a “snapout.” Due to the “mischief’ that these snapouts can cause on review, this court has expressed concern over their use. See Richardson v. State, 761 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Peterson v. State, 730 So. 2d 830, 831 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Grantham v. State, 735 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Based on this case-law, the petitioners appealed their adjudications to the circuit court challenging the county cou…
-
Zaborowski v. State, 126 So. 3d 405 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…xpressed concern over the use of snap-out sentencing memoran-da based on the mischief that they can cause. See Sutton v. State, 838 So. 2d 616, 617 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Heath v. State, 840 So. 2d 307, 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Richardson v. State, 761 So. 2d 1232, 1233 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Peterson v. State, 730 So. 2d 830, 831 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Grantham v. State, 735 So. 2d 525, 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). . It does appear that Zaborowski attempted to obtain reconsideration of the matter through the trial cou…
-
Phillips v. State, 198 So. 3d 789 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…Crow, 903 So. 2d 346, 350-51 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Sutton v. State, 838 So. 2d 616, 617 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Heath v. State, 840 So. 2d 307, 308-09 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Monroe v. State, 784 So. 2d 1163, 1164 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Richardson v. State, 761 So. 2d 1232, 1233 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Monroe v. State, 760 So. 2d 289, 289-90 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Peterson v. State, 730 So. 2d 830, 831 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). . The supreme court has recognized the use of rule 3.575 as an appropriate vehicle for interviewing jur…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Buster Grantham v. State, 735 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Waite v. City OF Fort Lauderdale, 681 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Zackery Holiday v. State, 730 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)