SHANE JOHNSON, 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 must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement regarding habitual offender status and that concurrent sentences must be corrected.
Defendant was convicted of aggravated assault, fleeing and eluding, and driving with a suspended license. The written sentence incorrectly designated …
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 Prison Releasee Reoffender Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant Shane Johnson appeals his judgment and sentence on Count I, aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer with a deadly weapon, Count II, fleeing and eluding an officer at high speed, and count III, driving with license suspended. We affirm in all respects, except for appellant’s sentence, which we reverse and remand for correction as stated below.
Contrary to the trial court’s oral findings and pronouncement of sentencing appellant as a habitual felony offender on Count II, the written sentence reflects that appellant was sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender. To conform the written sentence on Count II to the trial court’s oral pronouncement, designations on the written sentence shall be corrected to reflect appellant’s status as a habitual felony offender on Count II. See, e.g., Baker v. State, 760 So. 2d 1085, 1091 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). The “v.” shall be stricken from the phrase “as v. Habitual felony offender” on the disposition slip and the checkmark opposite “Habitual Violent Offender” shall be stricken from the commitment document.
Additionally, appellant’s sentence to concurrent terms of imprisonment as a habitual felony offender, a habitual violent offender, and a prison releasee reoffender on Count I must be corrected pursuant to Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655, 659 (Fla.2000).
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED.
POLEN, C.J., GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moreland v. State, 853 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…There is no ambiguity in this record. The trial court clearly pronounced a credit of 556 days time served. The case is therefore remanded to the trial court to correct the sentencing order to reflect the court’s oral pronouncement. Johnson v. State, 789 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). REVERSED AND REMANDED. FARMER, C.J., SHAHOOD and MAY, JJ., concur.…
-
Hernandez v. State, 824 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…e agrees, material omissions in the transcript of testimony make meaningful appellate review of the trial below impossible. Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for new trial is granted. See Delap v. State, 350 So. 2d 462 (Fla.1977); Murphy v. State, 789 So. 2d 1235, 1236 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), and cases cited. The conviction and sentence below are reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial. Motion granted.…
-
Aniel Vilsaint v. State, 890 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…e been unable to reconstruct the record. Under the circumstances, the State properly concedes that a new trial must be ordered. See, e.g., Delap v. State, 350 So. 2d 462 (Fla.1977); A.B. v. State, 816 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Murphy v. State, 789 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Jones v. State, 780 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Roberts v. State, 766 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Hunt v. State, 719 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Swain v. State, 701 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Rozier v. State, 669 So…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2000)
- Baker v. State, 760 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)