RICHARD ALAN PATE, 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.
Richard Alan Pate appealed his sentencing across five cases handled in one proceeding. The Florida District Court of Appeal found that while the trial court's oral pronouncements clearly established the intended sentence structure (30 years total), the written sentencing order in one case conflicted with those oral pronouncements, requiring reversal and remand for correction.
The court reversed the written sentencing order in case 03-34239 to the extent it conflicted with the oral pronouncements and remanded with instructions that count two be imposed concurrent with count one and the other Volusia cases, effective nunc pro tunc to the date originally imposed.
[1] A written sentencing order that contradicts the trial court's oral pronouncements must be reversed and remanded.
[2] Oral pronouncements of a sentence control over a conflicting written sentencing order.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Although the oral pronouncements by the trial court are clear and are consistent with the agreement of the parties, the written sentencing order in case number 03-34239 is at variance with the oral pronouncements.”
Establishes the core issue: conflict between oral and written sentences
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was sentenced in five cases during a single proceeding: four cases labeled the "Volusia" cases (including case number 03-34239) and one "Fla…
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 Concurrent Sentences cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the lower court in all respects except for a sentencing discrepancy. Appellant was sentenced in five cases during one proceeding. The parties referred to four of the cases, including the instant case (lower court case number 03-34239) as the “Volusia” eases. The fifth case (lower court case number 03-606) was labeled by the parties as the “Flagler” case. The transcript reveals that the lower court intended to impose concurrent sentences in all the “Volusia” cases. As to the “Fla-gler” case, the court intended that count one, a 30-year sentence, be served concurrent with the Volusia sentences, but that count two, a 15-year sentence, be served consecutive to the .15-year sentence imposed for count two of Volusia case number 03-34239. The intended result was that Appellant serve a total of 30 years in prison in satisfaction of all of his cases.
Although the oral pronouncements by the trial court are clear and are consistent with the agreement of the parties, the written sentencing order in case number 03-34239 is at variance with the oral pronouncements.
First, the written sentence states that count two is to be served consecutive to count two in the Flagler case, the opposite of what the trial court orally imposed.
Second, the written order’s requirement that the sentence for count two of Volusia case number 03-34329 be served after completion of the sentence for count two of the Flagler case, contravenes the trial court’s oral pronouncement that all of the Volusia sentences were to be served concurrent to one another. As such, the oral pronouncements and written sentence conflict, a point with which the State does not take issue. Instead, the State argues that Appellant is not prejudiced by the discrepancy because he will serve a 30-year sentence regardless of which of the consecutive sentences is served first. This is true unless Appellant’s sentences in the Flagler case are modified or nullified post conviction.
Because the written order is at variance with the oral pronouncement, we reverse it and remand this cause with instructions that the sentence in case number OS-34239, count two, be imposed concurrent with count one and the other Volusia case numbers 03-35343, 03-35042 and 04-30744, nunc pro tunc to the date the sentence was imposed.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
PLEUS, C.J., SHARP, W., and TORPY, JJ., concur.