JAMES SAULSBERRY, 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.
Appellant's conviction for resisting with violence and corruption by threat was affirmed, but the court reversed and remanded because the written sentence order did not conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement of concurrent probation sentences with weekend jail time.
The trial court's oral pronouncement of sentence controls over a conflicting written order, and general sentences encompassing multiple counts are improper.
[1] When a trial court's oral pronouncement of sentence conflicts with its written order, the oral pronouncement controls.
[2] Trial courts may not issue general sentences that encompass multiple counts; each count must receive a separate sentence.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“The law is clear that trial courts may no longer issue 'general' sentences which encompass more than one count.”
Citing Burgess v. State regarding improper general sentencing
Appellant was convicted after a non-jury trial of resisting with violence and corruption by threat. The trial court orally pronounced five years proba…
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.
After a non-jury trial, appellant was found guilt of resisting with violence (Count I) and corruption by threat (Count II). He appeals the denial of his motion to correct sentencing error.1 As the state concedes, the trial court erred in entering a written sentence order that did not conform to its oral pronouncement. The trial court’s oral pronouncement of five years probation on each count, concurrent, with a condition of sixty days jail to be served as long weekends, controls over the written sentence order imposing sixty days as a condition of ten years probation. See Arroyo v. State, 651 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Trueblood v. State, 635 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Kelly v. State, 414 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Additionally, the sentence order improperly included a general sentence for both counts. See Burgess v. State, 691 So. 2d 607, 608-09 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (“The law is clear that trial courts may no longer issue ‘general’ sentences which encompass more than oné count.”).
We therefore reverse and remand for correction of the sentencing errors consistent with this opinion.
STEVENSON, C.J., GUNTHER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur. . On June 15, 2005, appellant filed notice of the filing of his 3.800(b)(2) motion. The 60 day period for the trial court to rule on the motion expired without a ruling, so the motion was deemed denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 946 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…hat conviction was time served. The written sentence, however, reflects a sentence of 78.2 months’ imprisonment. The trial court did not rule on the rule 3.800(b)(2) motion within sixty days, thus constructively denying it. See Saulsberry v. State, 929 So. 2d 664, 664 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). Accordingly, we reverse the sentence as to count two in circuit court case number 04-CF-4028 and remand for the entry of an amended sentence that conforms to the oral pronouncement. See id. at 664. Affirmed in part, r…
Authorities Cited
- Daniels v. State, 414 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Trueblood v. State, 635 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Arroyo v. State, 651 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Chapman v. State, 651 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Burgess v. State, 691 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)