STEVEN MICHAEL KISELYK, 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.
Court affirmed drug trafficking and possession convictions but reversed sentences because the written judgment imposed consecutive sentences contrary to the trial court's oral pronouncement of concurrent sentences.
When a trial court's oral pronouncement of sentence differs from its written judgment, the oral pronouncement controls and the written judgment must be corrected to conform.
[1] The oral pronouncement of sentence controls over a written judgment when the two conflict, and the trial court must correct the written judgment to conform to the oral pr…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Because the oral pronouncement of sentence controls over the written judgment, see Allen v. State, 787 So. 2d 884, 885 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), we reverse Kiselyk's sentences and remand to the trial court with instructions to enter a written sentence that comports with its oral pronouncement.”
Court's explanation for reversing sentences and remanding for corrected written judgment
Kiselyk pleaded no contest to trafficking in methamphetamine and five drug possession offenses. The trial court orally sentenced him to 75 months on t…
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 Written Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
GREEN, OLIVER L., Senior Judge.
Stephen Kiselyk challenges his convictions and sentences for various drug offenses. We affirm Kiselyk’s convictions without discussion. However, we reverse Kiselyk’s sentences and remand for entry of a written sentence that comports with the trial court’s oral pronouncement.
Kiselyk pleaded no contest to one count of trafficking in methamphetamine, one count of possession of LSD, one count of possession of hydrocodone, one count of possession of alprazolam, one count of possession of marijuana, and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court orally sentenced Kiselyk to seventy-five months on the trafficking conviction, concurrent thirty-six-month sentences on the possession of LSD, hydrocodone, and alprazolam convictions, and time served on the possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia convictions. However, the written sentence imposed a seventy-five-month sentence not only on the trafficking conviction, but also on the convictions for possession of LSD, hydrocodone, and alprazolam. Because the oral pronouncement of sentence controls over the written judgment, see Allen v. State, 787 So. 2d 884, 885 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), we reverse Kiselyk’s sentences and remand to the trial court with instructions to enter a written sentence that comports with its oral pronouncement.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
SILBERMAN and KELLY, JJ„ concur.