W.S.G., 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.
W.S.G. appealed his delinquency adjudication and disposition order committing him to the Department of Juvenile Justice for domestic battery and probation violation. The court affirmed the adjudication but reversed the disposition order, finding that the written order failed to match the oral pronouncement and that separate disposition orders were required for each case.
The written disposition order must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement, and each case requires a separate disposition order. The juvenile court erred by entering one order of commitment in two separate cases and by failing to reflect the consecutive nature of the commitment as orally pronounced.
[1] A written sentence must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement when a discrepancy exists between the two.
[2] A juvenile court commits error by entering a single disposition order for multiple separate cases.
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“If a discrepancy exists between the written sentence and the oral pronouncement, the written sentence must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard requiring correction of written orders to match oral pronouncements in sentencing/disposition.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceW.S.G. was adjudicated delinquent for domestic battery in one case and for violating probation from an earlier battery offense in another case. The ju…
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 Domestic Battery cases and more on FLexlaw
W.S.G. appeals a disposition order committing him to the Department of Juvenile Justice after the juvenile court adjudicated him delinquent for domestic battery in circuit court case number 08-CJ-2835 and of violating his probation from an earlier offense of battery in circuit court case number 07-CJ-4237. We affirm his adjudication without discussion, but reverse the disposition order and remand for further proceedings.
During the pendency of this appeal, W.S.G. filed a motion to correct disposition error under Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.135(b)(2). The juvenile court did not rule on the motion within thirty days; thus, the motion is deemed denied. See Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.135(b)(2)(B). In his motion, W.S.G. argued the juvenile court’s disposition order, which revoked his probation in case number 07-CJ-4237, failed to comport with its oral pronouncement, which stated his commitment to the Department of Juvenile Justice was to run consecutively to his underlying probation in case number 07-CJ-4237. We find the juvenile court erred because “[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 that the juvenile court erred by entering one order of commitment in two separate cases. We find this was also error because under then-existing rule 8.115(c), “[ejach case requires a separate disposition order.”1 See A.R. v. State, 27 So.3d 774, 775 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); G.V. v. State, 863 So.2d 1271, 1272 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Accordingly, we reverse the original disposition order and remand to the juvenile court for the entry of new, separate disposition oz'ders in each case that properly reflect the juvenile court’s oral pronouncement.
*727Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
SILBERMAN and LaROSE, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
R.L.F. v. State, 228 So. 3d 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…in the actual disposition order. The disposition order reflects that the trial court imposed a total of $200 in costs and fees, whereas the trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence imposed a total of $150 in “court costs.” See W.S.G. v. State, 32 So. 3d 725, 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (“If a discrepancy exists between the written sentence and the oral pronouncement, the written sentence must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement.” (quoting Guerra v. State, 927 So. 2d 248, 249 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…
Authorities Cited
- Guerra v. State, 927 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- G.V. v. State, 863 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, 26 So. 3d 552 (Fla. 2009)
- N.L. v. State, 4 So. 3d 1286 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- Cotto-Marcano v. State, 27 So. 3d 774 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)
- A.R. v. State, 27 So. 3d 774 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)