WILLIAM LANDERS CARUTHERS, 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.
Caruthers appealed his probation violation sentences, challenging sentencing errors including imposition of a sentence on a previously dismissed charge and inconsistencies between oral pronouncements and written judgments. The Florida appellate court reversed and remanded for resentencing due to the trial court's error in sentencing on a dismissed count.
The court held that the trial court erred in sentencing Caruthers on Count I in CF-89 because that count had been previously dismissed. The court reversed and remanded for a new sentencing hearing, and directed that written judgments must correctly reflect the court's oral sentencing pronouncements.
[1] A defendant cannot be sentenced on a charge that has been dismissed pursuant to a plea agreement.
[2] A trial court must ensure that written judgments accurately reflect its oral sentencing pronouncements.
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“The trial court erred in sentencing Caruthers on Count I in CF-89 because that count had previously been dismissed.”
Establishes the primary legal error: the trial court lacked authority to sentence on a dismissed count
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCaruthers initially pleaded guilty to possession of listed chemical and possession of methamphetamine, receiving concurrent three-year probation terms…
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 Sentencing Error cases and more on FLexlaw
EVANDER, J.
As a result of several sentencing errors, we find it necessary to remand for a new sentencing hearing. Caruthers was originally charged in case 2006-CF-89 (CF-89) with attempted manufacture of methamphetamine (Count I) and possession of listed chemical (Count II). In case 2006-CF-90 (CF-90) Caruth-ers was originally charged with sale of methamphetamine. He subsequently entered a plea agreement whereby Count I in CF-89 would be dismissed and the charge in CF-90 would be reduced from sale of methamphetamine to possession of methamphetamine. The plea agreement provided for Garuthers to be sentenced to concurrent three year terms of probation on Count II in CF-89 (possession of listed chemical) and on the reduced charge in CF-90 (possession of methamphetamine). The trial court accepted the plea and sentenced Caruthers in accordance with the plea agreement. Count" I in CF-89 (attempted manufacture of methamphetamine) was dismissed.
Caruthers was later charged with violating his probation in both cases. He entered an open plea to the court. The trial court accepted the plea and sentenced Ca-ruthers to five years .incarceration on Count I in CF-89 (the previously dismissed charge), fifteen years incarceration on Count II in CF-89 and five years'incarceration in CF-90. The trial court pronounced that the sentences on the two counts in CF-89 were to run concurrently with each other but consecutive to the prison term imposed in CF-90.
' The trial court erred in sentencing Caruthers on Count I in CF-89 because that count had previously been dismissed. We find Caruthers adequately preserved this issue by suggesting to the trial court that he should only be sentenced on two counts. Accordingly, we remand this case for a new sentencing hearing.
We also note that the written judgments were inconsistent with the court’s oral pronouncement in several respects.1 Upon resentencing Caruthers, the trial judge should ensure that the written judgments correctly reflect his sentencing decisions.
REVERSED and REMANDED for a new sentencing hearing.
GRIFFIN and TORPY JJ., concur. . The written judgment in CF-89 reflected that Caruthers had been sentenced to fifteen years incarceration on Count I — not five years as orally pronounced by the court. The written judgment in CF-89 failed to make any reference to the sentence imposed on Count II and incorrectly reflected that the sentence in CF-89 was to run concurrent with the sentence in CF-90. The written judgment in CF-90 correctly reflected the court's oral pronouncements, but incorrectly notated possession of methamphetamine as a second degree felony rather than a third degree felony.