JOHNNY RACKINS, 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 affirmed Rackins' cocaine possession conviction but reversed his sentence due to a conflict between the trial court's oral pronouncement of thirty months and the written order of thirty-six months, remanding for the trial court to resolve the discrepancy.
Where a written sentence order conflicts with the trial court's oral pronouncement, the oral pronouncement prevails, but if the error is not conceded as clerical, the trial court must hold a factual hearing to resolve the conflict.
[1] When a trial court's oral pronouncement of sentence conflicts with its written order and the State does not concede the discrepancy is clerical error, the trial court mus…
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“Where a written order does not conform to the court's oral pronouncement of judgment and sentence, the oral pronouncement prevails.”
Establishing the general rule that oral pronouncements control over written orders when they conflict.
Johnny Rackins was convicted by jury of cocaine possession. The trial court's oral pronouncement of sentence was thirty months, but the written order …
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 Order cases and more on FLexlaw
STEVENSON, J.
Appellant, Johnny Rackins, was tried by jury and convicted of possession of cocaine. We affirm the conviction, but reverse the thirty-six month sentence and remand for a hearing so that the trial court may resolve the conflict between the apparent oral pronouncement of thirty months incarceration and the written order of thirty-six months. The State concedes that the transcript reflects that the oral pronouncement is inconsistent with the written sentence. However, the State points to at least three court documents signed by the trial judge which direct a thirty-six month sentence and maintains that “it appears that the court reporter either heard incorrectly or perhaps transcribed incorrectly.”
Where a written order does not conform to the court’s oral pronouncement of judgment and sentence, the oral pronouncement prevails. See Lacey v. State, 831 So. 2d 1267, 1270 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). However, if the State does not concede the error was clerical, a conflict between the written order and the oral pronouncement requires a factual resolution by the trial court.. See Tory v. State, 686 So. 2d 689, 691 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Accordingly, we reverse the sentence in this case and remand for such a factual resolution and the imposition of the appropriate sentence.
REVERSED in part and REMANDED.
TAYLOR and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Whitehead v. State, 904 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…orally pronounced a sentence of 21.150 months of imprisonment. The written judgment provided for a sentence of 22 months. We therefore reverse and remand for correction of the written judgment to conform to the oral pronouncement. Rackins v. State, 851 So. 2d 292, 292 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). WARNER, KLEIN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Rahmah Jakouch v. State, 831 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Traman D. Tory v. State, 686 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)