MACARIO RINCON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Defendant Macario Rincon appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to correct and clarify an illegal sentence. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that where there is a discrepancy between oral pronouncement and written sentencing order, the oral pronouncement controls and the written order must be conformed accordingly.
The trial court's denial of the motion to clarify was reversed in part. The court held that where there is a difference between the court's oral pronouncement and a written order, the oral pronouncement controls. The written sentence must be conformed to reflect the oral pronouncement of consecutive sentencing.
[1] Where there is a discrepancy between a court's oral pronouncement of sentence and the written sentencing order, the oral pronouncement controls.
[2] A scrivener's error in a written sentencing order may be corrected to conform to the court's oral pronouncement.
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“Where there is a difference between the court's oral pronouncement and a written order, the oral pronouncement controls.”
This establishes the fundamental principle that governs the court's reversal of the trial court's denial of the motion to clarify.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn March 13, 2000, Rincon entered a guilty plea to second degree murder and three counts of armed robbery. During the sentencing colloquy, the trial c…
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 Motion To Clarify Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
LAGOA, J.
Defendant, Macario Rincon, appeals an order of the trial court denying a motion to correct illegal sentence and motion to clarify sentence. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
On March 13, 2000, Defendant entered a plea of guilty to second degree murder and three counts of armed robbery. A review of the sentencing plea colloquy shows that Defendant entered a plea for a twenty year sentence to run consecutive to his federal sentence.1 Defendant’s sentencing guidelines scoresheet also indicates that his state sentence is consecutive to his federal sentence.
Due to a scrivener’s error, however, the written sentence indicates that the state sentence will run concurrent to his federal sentence. As a result of the error, Defendant moved for clarification regarding the discrepancy existing between his written sentencing order and his guidelines score-sheet. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion and this appeal ensued.
It is well settled that “[wjhere there is a difference between the court’s oral pronouncement and a written order, the oral pronouncement controls.” Catalan v. State, 911 So. 2d 203, 204 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). Accordingly, on remand, the trial court shall conform the Defendant’s written sentence to the trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence. Defendant’s presence is not required for this ministerial correction. We affirm the trial court’s order in all other respects.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and case remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
. During the sentencing hearing, the following exchange occurred:
The Court: And of course this sentence will be served consecutive to your federal, the sentence that you are presently serving in federal court. Is that your understanding of the arrangement, sir? Is that what you want to do?
The Defendant: Yes. The Court: Okay. And sentence him to 20 years on each count. Each count to run concurrent to each other. However, this sentence will run consecutive to the federal sentence that was imposed in federal case number 197 C as in cat, R as in Robert, 000 35-001. The 20 years state sentence also contains a three year minimum mandatory sentence for the use of a firearm during the robbery.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Trenard Edwards v. State, 997 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…e with the jury’s verdict of robbery without a firearm, on remand, the trial court shall correct the scrivener’s error contained in the Orders of Supervision. Appellant’s presence is not required for this ministerial correction. See Rincon v. State, 974 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). [*1129] Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and ease remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.…
Authorities Cited
- Catalan v. State, 911 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)