TOMMY MORELAND, 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 oral pronouncement of a sentence prevails over a written sentencing order when there is no ambiguity.
The defendant appealed the denial of his motion to correct a sentencing error, citing a discrepancy between the orally pronounced credit for time serv…
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 Correction Of Sentencing Error cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant appeals the automatic denial of his motion to correct a sentencing error, which occurred when the trial court failed to rule on the motion within sixty (60) days, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(l)B. The basis for his motion is the discrepancy between the number of days credit for time served written in the sentencing order (536) and that orally pronounced by the trial court at sentencing (556).
The State agrees that the written sentencing order does not conform to the court’s oral pronouncement. However, it suggests that the error may not be clerical in nature, and that the case should be remanded to the trial court to determine the correct number of days to be credited before the correction is made.
This court has consistently held that an oral pronouncement at sentencing prevails over a written order. See, e.g., Anthony v. State, 705 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Gibbs v. State, 693 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Thomas v. State, 595 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). Where there is no ambiguity in the trial court’s oral pronouncement, the sentencing order must be corrected to reflect the oral pronouncement. Only where there is an ambiguity in the oral pronouncement is there a need for the court to make a factual determination before making the correction. See Tory v. State, 686 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marshall v. State, 78 So. 3d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…ent, the sentencing order must be corrected to reflect the oral pronouncement. Only where there is an ambiguity in the oral pronouncement is there a need for the court to make a factual determination before making the correction.” Moreland v. State, 853 So. 2d 574, 575 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Here, there is no ambiguity. We therefore reverse the sentence and remand the case to the trial court to conform the written sentence to the oral pronouncement. Affirmed in part; Reversed in part and Remanded. HAZOURI an…
-
Parkerson v. State, 163 So. 3d 683 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…Stat. (2013). Thus, only those special conditions which the court orally pronounced could have been placed in the orders of community control and probation, and those orders must be corrected to reflect the oral pronouncement. See Moreland v. State, 853 So. 2d 574, 575 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (“Where there is no ambiguity in the trial court’s oral pronouncement, the sentencing order must be corrected, to reflect the oral pronouncement.”). Conclusion The voyeurism and video voyeurism statutes plainly are “primar…
-
Franklin v. State, 969 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…rial judge made inconsistent statements, the matter must be remanded to the trial court to clarify [*401] the sentence imposed and to enter such corrected sentencing orders as may be appropriate.” Tory, 686 So. 2d at 691; see also Moreland v. State, 853 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (stating that only where the oral pronouncement is ambiguous is there a need for the trial court to make a factual determination before making the correction). In the instant matter, the sentencing judge made inconsistent and am…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Traman D. Tory v. State, 686 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Thomas v. State, 595 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Johnson v. State, 789 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Cooper v. Fine, 705 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Gibbs v. State, 693 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Anthony v. State, 705 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)