ROBERT ALLEN DRAVES, 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 reversed and remanded for correction of sentencing documents to conform the written sentence to the oral pronouncement, and certified conflict regarding the constitutionality of sexual predator designation requirements.
A trial court's written sentencing documents must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement of sentence.
[1] A trial court's written sentencing documents must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement of sentence when the two conflict.
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 intelligenceDraves pleaded nolo contendere to lewd assault and lewd or lascivious molestation. The trial court orally sentenced him to ten years' imprisonment on …
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 Certification Of Conflict cases and more on FLexlaw
VILLANTI, Judge.
Robert Draves entered a plea of nolo contendere to lewd assault (count one) and lewd or lascivious molestation (count two). Pursuant to Draves’ plea agreement with the State, the trial court orally sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment on count two, followed by ten years’ probation on count one. Despite the oral pronouncement, the trial court’s written sentence reflects that Draves was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment on both counts, followed by concurrent terms of probation on both counts. Draves raised this issue in a motion to correct illegal sentence. The State concedes that Draves’ sentence must be corrected to conform with the oral pronouncement. See Ashley v. State, 850 So. 2d 1265, 1268 (Fla.2008). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for correction of the sentencing documents.
Draves filed an additional motion to correct sentence challenging his sexual predator designation on procedural due process grounds, citing Espindola v. State, 855 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (determining that the sexual predator designation requirements of the Jimmy Ryce Act violate procedural due process). Draves acknowledges that Espindola conflicts with Milks v. State, 848 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 2d DCA), review granted, 859 So. 2d 514 (Fla.2003), and requests that we again certify conflict so that his argument may also be preserved for review. We so certify.
Reversed and remanded for correction of sentence; conflict certified.
CASANUEVA and KELLY, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Columbus Rickey Ashley v. State, 850 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 2003)
- Ferman Carlos Espindola v. State, 855 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Milks v. State, 848 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)