DANNY L. 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.
Johnson pleaded guilty to worthless check and grand theft charges and was sentenced to run concurrently. The Department of Corrections was incorrectly running the sentences consecutively despite the sentencing court's oral pronouncement of concurrent sentences. The appellate court reversed the summary denial of Johnson's motion to correct his sentence and remanded for correction of the missing sentencing document.
The sentencing documents contained a scrivener's error in the grand theft case that created confusion at the Department of Corrections. The postconviction court was directed to correct the sentencing document to specifically reflect that the grand theft sentence was to run concurrently with the worthless check sentence, in accordance with the sentencing judge's stated intent.
[1] A written sentencing document may be corrected to reflect the sentencing court's oral pronouncements when a discrepancy exists.
[2] A scrivener's error in a written sentencing document may create confusion regarding the concurrent or consecutive nature of sentences.
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 sentencing document in the grand theft case, case number CF04-002026, appears to be missing a page, although the pages are consecutively numbered. This apparent scrivener's error may be creating confusion at the DOC.”
Identifies the precise administrative error causing DOC to run sentences consecutively instead of as intended
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn August 4, 2005, Johnson was sentenced for obtaining property with a worthless check (case CF04-006077) and grand theft (case CF04-002026). The sent…
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 Correct Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
Danny Johnson pleaded guilty to obtaining property with a worthless check and to grand theft, and he was sentenced for these crimes on August 4, 2005. At the sentencing hearing, the court stated that these two sentences were to run concurrently.
On October 19, 2006, Johnson filed a motion to correct his sentence. Fla. R. Crim. P. 8.800(a). He asserted that although the court had announced that his sentences were to run concurrently, the Department of Corrections was running them consecutively. In January 2007, the postconviction court summarily denied Johnson’s motion, but it did not address the issue of whether DOC was running the worthless check sentence consecutively to the grand theft conviction.
We reversed this summary denial and remanded to the postconviction court to review the record to determine whether a discrepancy existed between the sentencing court’s oral pronouncements and the written sentencing documents. Johnson v. State, 972 So.2d 310, 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).
On remand, the postconviction court again summarily denied Johnson’s motion and attached copies of the written sentencing documents. The written sentence for the worthless check conviction, case number CF04-006077, specifically states the sentence is to run concurrently with the sentence imposed in case number CF04-002026, the grand theft conviction. But the written sentence for the grand theft conviction does not contain the preprinted provision addressing whether the sentence is consecutive to or concurrent with any *239other sentences. The transcript of the sentencing hearing and the sentencing document for the worthless check conviction establish that the sentencing judge intended that the sentences for the two crimes would run concurrently. The sentencing document in the grand theft case, case number CF04-002026, appears to be missing a page, although the pages are consecutively numbered. This apparent scrivener’s error may be creating confusion at the DOC. Accordingly, we reverse the denial of Johnson’s motion and remand to the postconviction court with directions to correct the sentencing document in case number CF04-002026 to specifically reflect that the sentence is to run concurrently with the sentence imposed in case number CF04-006077.
Reversed and remanded.
VILLANTI and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.