SEAN PATRICK SULLIVAN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 2008-01-07
No. 1D06-5901
POLSTON, HAWKES, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
971 So. 2d 269 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2008) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

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.

Synopsis

Sean Patrick Sullivan appealed his sentence after pleading no contest to burglary, criminal mischief, and assault. The trial court orally pronounced him a youthful offender but the written judgment failed to reflect this designation, and the appellate court reversed and remanded to correct the discrepancy.


Holding

The court held that a discrepancy between a written judgment and an oral pronouncement of sentence is cognizable in a Rule 3.800 motion to correct illegal sentence, and that a court's oral pronouncement of a sentence controls over the written sentencing document. Accordingly, Sullivan's sentence was reversed to the extent it did not reflect the youthful offender designation.


Headnotes

[1] A discrepancy between a written judgment and sentence and the oral pronouncement of the sentence is cognizable in a motion to correct an illegal sentence.

[2] A court's oral pronouncement of a sentence controls over the written sentencing document.

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

Key Quotes

“a court's oral pronouncement of a sentence controls over the written sentencing document”

Establishes the primary legal rule that oral pronouncements take precedence over written judgments when they conflict

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Sullivan pled no contest to three counts: burglary of a dwelling with assault, criminal mischief, and assault. At sentencing, the trial court orally p…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Sean Patrick Sullivan appeals his judgment and sentence. In the proceedings below, appellant pled no contest to three counts, (I) burglary of a dwelling with assault, (II) criminal mischief, and (III) assault. At his sentencing hearing, the trial court orally announced appellant would be sentenced as a youthful offender to time served on counts II and III, and to seventy-two months probation, with the first twenty-four months on community control, on count I. However, the subsequent written judgment and sentence did not reflect that appellant was sentenced as a youthful offender. Appellant filed a Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). On May 29, 2007, the Clerk entered a statement certifying that no ruling was entered on the motion. Pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(1)(B), we treat the statement of no ruling as a denial of the motion.

The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in entering a written judgment and sentence which does not conform to the court’s oral pronouncement. A discrepancy between a written judgment and sentence and the oral pronouncement of the sentence is cognizable in a Rule 3.800 motion to correct illegal sentence. See Williams v. State, 957 So. 2d 600 (Fla.2007). In such cases, “a court’s oral pronouncement of a sentence controls over the written sentencing document.” Id. at 603. Thus, we REVERSE appellant’s sentence to the extent it does not reflect that appellant was sentenced as a youthful offender, and REMAND with instructions to the trial court to correct the error. Because this is a ministerial act, the appellant’s presence is not required.

POLSTON, HAWKES, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Morris v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)
    …le Carjacking contrary to section 812.133(2)(b), Florida Statutes. The issue of an alleged discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of a sentence and the written portion of said sentence is one cognizable in a rule 3.800 motion. Sullivan v. State, 971 So. 2d 269, 270 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). In such circumstances, the oral pronouncement of a sentence controls over the written sentence form. Id.; Marshall v. State, 652 So. 2d 974, 974-75 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (vacating written portion of a sentence for inconsisten…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw