JOSEPH LAMAR WILSON, 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.
Joseph Wilson challenged his resentencing after obtaining relief through a motion to correct an illegal sentence. The appellate court affirmed the sentences as orally imposed but remanded for the trial court to correct clerical errors in the written judgments that failed to reflect the merger of two murder convictions into a single life sentence and failed to reflect that the life sentence and robbery sentence were to run concurrently.
The court affirmed the sentences as orally pronounced—a single life sentence for the merged murder convictions running concurrently with a 15-year sentence for robbery with a firearm—but remanded for the trial court to correct clerical errors in the written judgments to accurately reflect the merger of convictions and concurrent sentencing.
[1] A court may correct clerical errors in written judgments and sentences to accurately reflect the oral pronouncements.
[2] When a jury returns a guilty verdict under alternative theories for the same crime, the convictions should be merged into a single conviction.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Because the minimum mandatory sentences were run consecutively even though the crimes occurred as part of the same criminal episode, resentencing was ordered.”
Explains the basis for the original resentencing motion and why Wilson's original sentences were found to be illegal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilson was originally charged with first-degree premeditated murder and first-degree felony murder of the same victim. A jury found him guilty under b…
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 Concurrent Vs. Consecutive Sentences cases and more on FLexlaw
Joseph Wilson challenges the new sentences he received after he was granted relief through a motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm the new sentences as orally imposed but write to correct two clerical errors in the written judgments and sentences.
Wilson was originally charged under alternative theories with first-degree premeditated murder and first-degree felony murder of the same victim. When the jury returned a guilty verdict under both theories, the convictions were merged to reflect one count of first-degree murder, for which Wilson received a life sentence with a twenty-five-year minimum mandatory. He also was convicted of one count of robbery with a firearm, for which he received a fifteen-year sentence with a three-year minimum mandatory. Because the minimum mandatory sentences were run consecutively even though the crimes occurred as part of the same criminal episode, resentencing was ordered.
At resentencing, the court specifically stated that it was sentencing Wilson to life on his merged convictions for first-degree murder. The court’s written order also reflects the imposition of a single life sentence on these merged counts. Wilson’s life sentence was orally pronounced to run concurrently with his fifteen-year sentence for robbery with a firearm. The written judgment and sentence entered after re-sentencing do not reflect that the first-degree premeditated and first-degree felony murder convictions were merged. Rather, on the face of the written judgment and sentence it appears that Wilson is serving two life sentences on two separate first-degree murder convictions. Additionally, the sentences do not reflect that they were designated to run concurrently. There is nothing in the record to suggest that these were anything more than clerical errors. Accordingly, we affirm all aspects of Wilson’s sentences as orally imposed but remand for the trial court to enter written judgments and sentences that correctly reflect a single life sentence for the merged convictions and reflect that *914his life sentence and fifteen-year sentence are to run concurrently. See Parajon v. State, 50 So.3d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).
Affirmed; remanded.
SILBERMAN and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rivera v. State, 73 So. 3d 333 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…ra argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence of the fair market value of the stolen property and, as a result, his felony conviction should be reduced to the lesser offense of petit theft of the second degree. See Alvarez v. State, 56 So. 3d 912 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); see also Smith v. State, 955 So. 2d 1227, 1229 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (holding that state is required to present competent evidence to prove value of stolen property at time of theft). The contemporaneous objection rule applies to…
Authorities Cited
- Reiniel Parajon v. State, 50 So. 3d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)