ARIEZ MARRERO, 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.
Ariez Marrero appeals his convictions for sexual battery crimes. The appellate court affirmed the convictions but modified the judgment by striking erroneous adjudications of guilt on counts one and two, which the trial court had orally declined to enter at sentencing due to potential double jeopardy concerns.
The appellate court did not reach the double jeopardy question because the trial court's oral pronouncement clearly stated that the defendant was not to be adjudicated guilty on counts one and two. The court struck the erroneous adjudications of guilt on counts one and two from the written judgment to conform it to the oral pronouncement, rendering the double jeopardy issue moot.
[1] A written judgment of guilt may be modified to conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement.
[2] An appellate court may strike an erroneous adjudication of guilt from a written judgment when it conflicts with the trial 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“At sentencing the State requested that the court adjudicate the defendant guilty on counts three and four but not counts one and two. The State expressed concern that there might be a double jeopardy issue.”
Establishes the factual basis for the State's request and the potential legal issue at sentencing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMarrero was convicted on four counts of sexual battery: counts one and three charged armed sexual battery on a person twelve years of age or older, an…
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 Written Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant, Ariez Marrero, appeals his convictions in a sexual battery case. Counts one through four were sexual battery. For each act of sexual battery, the defendant was convicted of two crimes: one count of armed sexual battery on a person twelve years of age or older,1 and one count of sexual battery on a familial child while armed.2
At sentencing the State requested that the court adjudicate the defendant guilty *145on counts three and four but not counts one and two. The State expressed concern that there might be a double jeopardy issue. The State explained that the information charged the same act in count one and three, and the same act in counts two and four. The trial court stated, “I don’t know that I agree with that legally, but if that’s the [State’s] request I’ll adhere to it.” The court orally adjudicated the defendant guilty on counts three and four, as well as count five.3 The court imposed concurrent life sentences on counts three and four, and a concurrent thirty-year sentence on count five.
Although the court had ordered that there would be no adjudication on counts one and two, the written judgment erroneously adjudicated the defendant guilty on counts one and two. The written sentencing order was consistent with the oral pronouncement, that is, it accurately recorded the orally pronounced sentences on counts three through five.4 No sentence was imposed on counts one and two.
On this appeal, the defendant argued that the adjudications on counts one and two violated double jeopardy principles. We do not need to reach that issue. The trial court’s oral pronouncement was that the defendant was not to be adjudicated guilty on counts one and two. We therefore strike the adjudication of guilt on counts one and two. Having done so, the double jeopardy question is moot.
Affirmed as modified.