N.L., 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.
N.L. appealed his adjudication of delinquency for possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia. The court affirmed the adjudication but reversed the disposition order because the amended written order did not match the trial court's original oral pronouncement regarding probation terms.
The court affirmed the adjudication of delinquency but reversed the disposition order because the written amended order did not comport with the trial court's oral pronouncement. The case was remanded for entry of a corrected disposition order that accurately reflects the original oral disposition.
[1] A written disposition order must accurately reflect the trial court's oral pronouncement of disposition.
[2] A court may amend a disposition order to correct errors and ensure it aligns with the 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“the July 8, 2008, amended order does not comport with the trial court's oral pronouncement, we reverse the disposition order and remand for the limited purpose of the entry of a corrected disposition order”
Establishes the core holding that written orders must match oral pronouncements and the remedy is remand for correction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceN.L. pleaded nolo contendere to possession of cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia. At the time of disposition, N.L. was sixteen years old. Th…
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 Possession Of Drug Paraphernalia cases and more on FLexlaw
N.L. challenges his adjudication of delinquency and disposition order entered for possession of cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia. The disposition order was originally entered on November 28, 2007, but an amended order was entered on July 8, 2008, after the trial court granted N.L.’s motion to correct disposition order. We affirm N.L.’s adjudication without comment. However, because the July 8, 2008, amended order does not comport ■with the trial court’s oral pronouncement, we reverse the disposition order and remand for the limited purpose of the entry of a corrected disposition order.
N.L. pleaded nolo contendere to one count of possession of cocaine and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court adjudicated him delinquent and placed him on probation on count one for a term not to exceed his nineteenth birthday. As to count two, the trial court placed N.L. on probation for no more than one year.1 However, the original written disposition order did not reflect the oral disposition imposed on count two and additionally referred to dispositions imposed in other cases. On May 20, 2008, N.L. filed a motion to correct the disposition order, pointing out these errors. On July 10, 2008, the trial court filed an amended disposition order, removing the dispositions for the other case numbers and including disposition for both counts one and two of the instant case. However, the amended disposition order reflected that N.L. was placed on probation until his nineteenth birthday on both counts.
The State has properly conceded that this written disposition does not comport with the trial court’s orally pronounced disposition. Accordingly, we reverse the July 8, 2008, disposition order and remand for the entry of a written disposition order that accurately reflects the trial court’s November 28, 2007, oral pronouncement. See S.D.F. v. State, 911 So.2d 887 (Fla. 8d DCA 2005). We note that Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.947 provides a form order designating all the information such an order should include.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
SILBERMAN, J., and DAKAN, STEPHEN L., Associate Senior Judge, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
L.D. v. State, 107 So. 3d 514 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…thday. Because a trial court’s written disposition must be consistent with its oral pronouncement, we reverse the disposition order and remand for entry of a corrected order that accurately reflects the court’s oral pronouncement. See N.L. v. State, 4 So. 3d 1286 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). The disposition order also reflects that L.D.’s curfew is during daytime rather than nighttime hours (6:00 a.m.-9:00 p.m.; 6:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m.). At the revocation hearing, the court stated, “curfew is 9 p.m. Sunday through Thur…
-
W.S.G. v. State, 32 So. 3d 725 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…ecause “[i]f a discrepancy exists between the written sentence and the oral pronouncement, the written sentence must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement.” Guerra v. State, 927 So. 2d 248, 249 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); see also N.L. v. State, 4 So. 3d 1286, 1287 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (reversing a disposition order that failed to comport to the juvenile court’s oral pronouncement and remanding for the limited purpose of entering a corrected disposition order). In addition, W.S.G. alleged in his motion t…
-
B. L. S. v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…("Because a trial court's written disposition must be consistent with its oral pronouncement, we reverse the disposition order and remand for entry of a corrected order that accurately reflects the court's oral pronouncement." (citing N.L. v. State, 4 So. 3d 1286 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009))). We affirm the disposition order in all other respects. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions. MORRIS and BLACK, JJ., Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- S.D.F. v. State, 911 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)