ANGELA M. PARSONS, 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 because the trial court failed to resolve an inconsistency between the oral pronouncement of concurrent sentences and conflicting written sentencing orders indicating consecutive sentences.
When an inconsistency exists between the oral pronouncement of sentence and written sentencing orders, the trial court must clarify the sentences on remand.
[1] An inconsistency between the oral pronouncement of sentence and written sentencing orders requires the trial court to conduct a factual hearing to clarify and correct the…
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“You'll be sentenced to a year and a day in a Florida State Prison.”
The trial court's oral pronouncement of sentence at the August 20, 2004 sentencing hearing for both cases.
Angela Parsons received sentences in two cases with conflicting written orders: one indicating concurrent sentences and the other indicating consecuti…
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 Clarification Of Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Angela Parsons appeals the denial of her petition for clarification of sentence, which has been treated as a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In her petition and initial brief, she points out the inconsistency between the written sentence imposed for circuit court case number 02-CF-11706 (indicating concurrent with case number 03-CF-11337) and that imposed for case number 03-CF-11337 (indicating consecutive to case number 02-CF-11706).
From the denial order, it appears that the posteonviction court considered only the written sentence for case number 03-CF-11337 and did not consider the written sentence for case number 02-CF-11706.
The transcript of the August 20, 2004, sentencing hearing for both cases seems to indicate that the sentences were imposed concurrently. The defense attorney informed the trial court that: “The State and I have agreed on a year and a day Florida State Prison.” After the trial court accepted an admission to a violation of probation for both cases, it orally pronounced the sentence stating: “You’ll be sentenced to a year and a day in a Florida State Prison.”
An inconsistency among the oral pronouncement of sentence and the two written sentences requires a factual resolution by the trial court. See Enchautegui v. State, 749 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Therefore, the order of the trial court must be reversed and remanded with directions for the trial court to clarify the sentences imposed and to enter such corrected sentencing orders as may be appropriate.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
ALTENBERND, C.J., and CASANUEVA and SILBERMAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Allen v. State, 137 So. 3d 946 (Fla. 2013)…hether the kidnapping was sufficiently separate from other criminal charges. See Faison v. State, 426 So. 2d 963, 965-66 (Fla.1983); Berry v. State, 668 So. 2d 967, 969 (Fla.1996); Mobley v. State, 409 So. 2d 1031, 1034 (Fla.1982); Sanders v. State, 905 So. 2d 271, 272 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Mackerley v. State, 754 So. 2d 132, 137 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). In Faison, the following test was applied when a defendant was charged with two crimes, one of which was kidnapping under section 787.01(a)(2), “if a taking or co…
-
Essex v. State, 917 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…e Florida Supreme Court relied on Smith to quash the fifth district’s reversal of the respondent’s false imprisonment conviction, again articulating that the Faison test is not applicable to false imprisonment convictions. See also Sanders v. State, 905 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (reversing defendant’s conviction for kidnapping based on the Faison test and remanding for the trial court to enter judgment for the lesser offense of false imprisonment because the Faison test does not apply to false imprisonmen…
-
In re Standard Jury Instructions IN Crim. Cases-Report NO. 2014-02, 152 So. 3d 475 (Fla. 2014)…1 Battery_784.03_8.3 Assault 784.011 8.1 Comments The Faison test for determining whether a particular confinement or movement during the commission of another crime constitutes kidnapping, does not apply to false imprisonment. Sanders v. State, 905 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). This instruction was adopted in 1981 and was amended in 1985 [477 So. 2d 985], aad 1998 [723 So. 2d 123], and 2014. 16.1 AGGRAVATED CHILD ABUSE § 827.03(2)(a), Fla. Stat. To prove the crime of Aggravated Child Abuse, the Stat…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ernestor Enchautegui v. State, 749 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)