JAMARL VAUGHN, 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.
Jamarl Vaughn appealed his criminal sentence on four issues. The court affirmed two issues without discussion but reversed and remanded on two sentencing issues: conflicting written and oral pronouncements regarding credit for time served, and improper imposition of investigatory costs and a public defender fee.
The court reversed and remanded on two issues: (1) the written sentence must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement, and (2) the Sheriff's Investigatory costs, Prosecution Investigatory costs, and Public Defender fee must be stricken because they were not properly announced or requested at sentencing and the defendant was not advised of his right to contest the public defender fee.
[1] A written sentence that conflicts with an oral pronouncement of a sentence is an illegal sentence and may be remedied.
[2] A motion to correct a sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) is considered denied if not ruled upon within 60 days.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“A written sentence that conflicts with an oral pronouncement of a sentence is an illegal sentence, and may be remedied in a rule 3.800 proceeding.”
Establishes the legal principle that written and oral pronouncements must align and that conflicts constitute illegal sentences
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVaughn was sentenced by the trial court. The court's written sentencing order conflicted with its oral pronouncement regarding credit for time served.…
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 Public Defender Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
Jamarl Vaughn, the appellant, raises four issues on appeal. We affirm the first two without discussion. However, we reverse and remand the remaining two issues for correction of sentencing errors.
The state correctly concedes that the court’s written order imposing Vaughn’s sentence conflicts with the court’s oral pronouncement regarding credit for time *139served. A written sentence that conflicts with an oral pronouncement of a sentence is an illegal sentence, and may be remedied in a rule 3.800 proceeding. Allwine v. State, 42 So.3d 291, 293 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (citing Williams v. State, 957 So.2d 600, 603 (Fla.2007)). Vaughn preserved the sentencing errors by filing a motion to correct his sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). Because this motion was not ruled upon within 60 days, it is considered to have been denied. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2)(B). Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions to the trial court to correct the written sentence in accordance with the oral pronouncement.
Next, the state properly concedes error in the trial court’s imposition of Sheriffs Investigatory costs, Prosecution Investigatory costs, and the Public Defender fee. The investigatory costs were not announced at sentencing and there is no record evidence that they were requested or documented by the state. Thus, these costs should be stricken. Parker v. State, 44 So.3d 1190, 1191 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (striking Sheriffs Investigatory Costs and the Prosecution Investigatory costs where “there is no record indication that the State requested or demonstrated these costs as required under the statute”). On remand, the state may not seek to reimpose these costs because the record does not demonstrate that the state requested these costs. Fisher v. State, 697 So.2d 1291, 1292 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).
Finally, the state properly concedes that that the Public Defender fee should be stricken because the trial court did not advise Vaughn of his right to contest the amount. See § 938.29(5), Fla. Stat.; Fla. R.Crim. P. Rule 3.720(d)(1). For this reason, the Public Defender fee must be stricken. On remand, the trial court is directed to advise Vaughn of his right to a hearing to contest the Public Defender fee. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.720(d); Bryant v. State, 661 So.2d 1315, 1316-17 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
VAN NORTWICK, WETHERELL, and ROWE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (21 total)
-
Mills v. State, 177 So. 3d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…the sheriffs investigative cost. On remand, the trial court may not reimpose this investigative cost because there is no record evidence the state requested the cost. See DeSalvo v. State, 107 So. 3d 1185, 1187 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); Vaughn v. State, 65 So. 3d 138, 139 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). The fine authorized by section 775.083(1), Florida Statutes, is also discretionary, and the state concedes it was error for the trial court to impose the $100 fine under this statute without notice or hearing and without s…
-
Leondray Kirkland v. State, 106 So. 3d 4 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…38.29(5), Fla. Stat.; Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.720(d)(1). As this court has previously held, this fee must be stricken and, on remand, the trial court shall advise Appellant of his right to a hearing to contest the Public Defender fee. See Vaughn v. State, 65 So. 3d 138, 139 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Finally, as the trial court did not impose a fine, pursuant to section 938.06(1), Fla. Stat (2009), the $20 imposition of court costs must be stricken.* See Clavelle v. State, 80 So. 3d 456, 457 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); see al…
-
DeSALVO v. State, 107 So. 3d 1185 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…ent legal assistance fee); Nix v. State, 84 So. 3d 424, 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (discretionary fines and surcharges), but the court may not reimpose the stricken investigative costs because they were not requested by the State.3 See Vaughn v. State, 65 So. 3d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); but see Love v. State, 992 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). If the trial court elects not to reimpose the stricken fine, surcharges, and fees, Appellant need not be present for the entry of the corrected judgment and sentence. See…
Previewing 3 of 21 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 957 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2007)
- Bryant v. State, 661 So. 2d 1315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Dwon Parker v. State, 44 So. 3d 1190 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- Fisher v. State, 697 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Allwine v. State, 42 So. 3d 291 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)