STEVE SOLOMON JOHNSON, 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.
Steve Solomon Johnson appealed his convictions and sentences imposed pursuant to voluntary pleas in nine cases. The court affirmed all convictions but reversed and remanded two sentences to correct a drafting error in the sentencing documents that inadvertently imposed a nine-year composite term instead of the intended seven-year composite term.
The written sentences in the two second-degree felony cases contained a correctable sentencing error. The court reversed and remanded those sentences with directions to conform the written documents to the court's oral pronouncement, which would result in the intended seven-year composite term rather than the nine-year composite term created by the defective written sentences.
[1] A trial court's written sentencing order must conform to its oral pronouncement of sentence.
[2] A defendant preserves a sentencing error for appellate review by filing a timely motion to correct the error.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 clear from the plea transcript that the trial court's intent during the plea hearing was to impose a composite seven-year prison term by sentencing Appellant to concurrent five-year sentences on each of the third-degree felony cases, followed by concurrent two-year terms of incarceration on the two second-degree felony cases — with the sentences on the latter two cases running consecutive to the five-year sentences imposed in the first seven cases.”
Establishes the trial court's actual intent regarding the composite sentencing structure
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohnson entered pleas to nine circuit court cases on July 28, 2006, in exchange for a seven-year composite term. Seven cases involved third-degree fel…
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 Oral Pronouncement Vs. Written Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
LAWSON, J.
Steve Solomon Johnson appeals from his judgments and sentences imposed pursuant to voluntary pleas that he entered in nine separate cases. We affirm the convictions without comment, but reverse the sentences in two cases for correction of an error in the sentencing documents.
On July 28, 2006, Appellant entered a plea to nine circuit court cases in exchange for a seven-year composite term of incarceration. In seven of the cases Appellant was charged with one third-degree felony per case. In the other two cases (2005-37169 and 2005-37639), Appellant was charged with one second-degree felony per case. It is clear from the plea transcript that the trial court’s intent during the plea hearing was to impose a composite seven-year prison term by sentencing Appellant to concurrent five-year sentences on each of the third-degree felony cases, followed by concurrent two-year terms of incarceration on the two second-degree felony cases — with the sentences on the latter two cases running consecutive to the five-year sentences imposed in the first seven cases. This was also the court’s oral pronouncement. However, upon entering the written sentences in each case, the trial court failed to indicate that the sentences in the two second-degree felony cases were to be run concurrently with one another. Instead, the written sentences in these latter two cases only indicate that the sentences were to be “run consecutive [to] any active sentence being served.”
The problem with this written designation is that instead of effectively imposing a composite seven-year term, the trial court’s written sentences in case numbers 2005-37169 and 2005-37639 create a composite nine-year term because of the failure to note that the sentences were to be served consecutive to the five-year sentences but concurrently with one another. Appellant preserved the issue for appellate review by timely filing a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct sentencing error. However, the trial court failed to enter an order addressing Appellant’s motion within the required time and, therefore, the motion was deemed denied.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand Appellant’s sentences in case numbers 2005-37169 and 2005-37639, with directions that the written sentences be conformed to the court’s oral pronouncement. In all other respects, Johnson’s convictions and sentences are affirmed. It is not necessary for Appellant to be present when the sentences are corrected. See, e.g., Highberger v. State, 863 So. 2d 1256, 1257 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.
GRIFFIN and MONACO, JJ., concur.