WILLIAM MURPHY ALLEN, JR., 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.
William Murphy Allen Jr. appeals his convictions for murder, robbery, and burglary. The court affirmed the convictions but reversed the sentences for robbery and burglary due to a labeling error in the written sentencing judgment that did not reflect the trial court's stated intent at sentencing.
The sentences for counts II and III are reversed and the case is remanded for correction of the written sentence to reflect the trial court's actual intent as expressed at sentencing. The convictions are affirmed.
[1] A judgment of conviction may be affirmed as to guilt while reversed as to sentencing.
[2] A sentence may be vacated and remanded for correction when the written judgment misstates the count to which the sentence applies, contrary to the trial court's stated in…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“It is apparent from the record that the trial court intended to impose the permissible statutory maximum for the burglary conviction, which is actually count II of the judgment of conviction, and to impose the statutory maximum for the robbery conviction, which is actually count III of the judgment of conviction.”
Establishes that the trial court's intent can be discerned from the sentencing hearing despite the written judgment's error in transposing the sentences.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAllen was indicted on three counts: murder (count I), burglary (count II), and robbery (count III). He was adjudicated guilty on all counts. At senten…
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 Robbery Conviction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
William Murphy Allen, Jr., challenges his judgment of conviction for murder, robbery and burglary. We affirm the convictions, but, for the reasons that follow, we reverse the sentences imposed and remand for entry of a corrected sentence.
By indictment, appellant was charged in count I with murder, in count II with burglary, and in count III with robbery. The judgment of conviction reflects an adjudication of guilty for murder as to count I, for burglary as to count II, and for robbery as to count III. At the sentencing hearing, however, the prosecutor erroneously advised the trial court that count II was the robbery conviction and then agreed with the trial court’s surmise that count III was the burglary conviction. The trial court then asked about the statutory maximum sentence for the robbery conviction and was correctly informed by the prosecutor that the statutory maximum sentence for such a second degree felony is fifteen years. The court was then told by the prosecutor that the statutory maximum sentence for the burglary conviction, a third degree felony, was five years. The trial court then orally announced a fifteen year sentence for count II and a five year sentence for count III, having already sentenced appellant to life for the murder conviction. The written sentence thereafter entered reflects a fifteen year sentence for count II and a five year sentence for count III.
It is apparent from the record that the trial court intended to impose the permissible statutory maximum for the burglary conviction, which is actually count II of the judgment of conviction, and to impose the statutory maximum for the robbery conviction, which is actually count III of the judgment of conviction. The sentences imposed for counts II and III are therefore vacated, and the cause is remanded for entry of a corrected sentence to conform with the trial court’s intent as indicated in the sentencing hearing. See Hamilton v. State, 586 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Appellant need not be present for entry of the corrected sentence.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
ERVIN, BARFIELD and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.