WILLIE F. MARSHALL, 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.
Willie Marshall appeals his cocaine delivery conviction and sentence. The appellate court affirmed the conviction but reversed the sentencing order because the written document imposed eight years of probation instead of the eight months of probation the trial court orally pronounced.
The trial court did not err in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal. However, the written sentencing order was illegal because it imposed a more severe sentence (eight years probation) than the oral pronouncement (eight months probation), and must be corrected to conform to the unambiguous oral pronouncement.
[1] A court's oral pronouncement of a sentence controls over a written sentencing document.
[2] When a written sentencing document results in a sentence more severe than the sentence announced in court, the sentence is illegal.
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“[A] court's oral pronouncement of a sentence controls over the written sentencing document. When the written document results in a sentence that is more severe than the sentence announced in court, ... the sentence is illegal.”
Establishes the fundamental rule that oral pronouncements of sentence prevail over written orders and that a more severe written sentence is illegal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMarshall was convicted by jury of delivery of cocaine and adjudicated a habitual felony offender. The trial court orally pronounced a sentence of seve…
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 Appeal From Conviction And Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant appeals his conviction and sentence for delivery of cocaine. He argues the court erred in two ways: (1) denying his motion for judgment of acquittal; and (2) entering a sentencing order that did not conform to the court’s oral pronouncement. We find no error in the denial of the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal, but agree that the sentencing order fails to conform to the court’s oral pronouncement. We therefore affirm in part and reverse in part.
After the jury returned a guilty verdict on the delivery of cocaine charge, the trial court adjudicated the defendant guilty, and sentenced him as a habitual felony offender. The trial court orally pronounced the sentence as seven years of prison, followed by eight months of probation. The written sentencing order, however, indicated eight years rather than eight months of probation.1
“[A] court’s oral pronouncement of a sentence controls over the written sentencing document. When the written document results in a sentence that is more severe than the sentence announced in court, ...” the sentence is illegal. Williams v. State, 957 So.2d 600, 603 (Fla. 2007).
Here, the written sentence reflects an eight-year term of probation to follow the term of imprisonment, but the trial transcript reflects an oral pronouncement of seven years imprisonment followed by eight months of probation. The oral sentence is not ambiguous. Nevertheless, the State does not concede error. It contends the trial court either misspoke or the transcript is wrong because, later that day, the trial court sentenced a defendant in another case to a term of imprisonment followed by eight years of probation to be served concurrently.
Notwithstanding the State’s alternative theories, “[wjhere there is no ambiguity in the trial court’s oral pronouncement, the sentencing order must be corrected to reflect the oral pronouncement. Only where there is an ambiguity in the oral pronouncement is there a need for the court to make a factual determination before making the correction.” Moreland v. State, 853 So.2d 574, 575 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Here, there is no ambiguity.
We therefore reverse the sentence and remand the case to the trial court to conform the written sentence to the oral pronouncement.
Affirmed in part; Reversed in part and Remanded.
HAZOURI and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ducker v. State, 197 So. 3d 1095 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…these designations. Accordingly, on remand, the trial court shall correct the júdgment to conform to the oral pronouncement. See Bryant, 124 So. 3d at 257 (remanding for written judgment to conform to oral pronouncement); see also Marshall v. State, 78 So. 3d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (stating that if there is no ambiguity in oral pronouncement, sentencing order must be corrected to reflect oral pronouncement). Appellant need not be present for these ministerial corrections to the judgment. See Walton v. Sta…
-
Johnson v. State, 221 So. 3d 715 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…he trial [*718] court denied- relief. The motion. should have been granted and the sentencing documents amended to reflect that counts 1 and 3 are to be served concurrently with each other and any active sentence being served. See Marshall v. State, 78 So. 3d 72, 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (“ ‘[A] court’s oral pronouncement of a sentence controls over the written sentencing document. When the written document results in a sentence that is more severe than the sentence announced in court, ... ’ the sentence is i…
-
Elton Navare Allen Taylor v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)…“concurrently unless the court directs that two or more of the sentences be served consecutively.” § 921.16(1), Fla. Stat. (2018). Additionally, a trial court’s written sentence must conform to its orally pronounced sentence. See Marshall v. State, 78 So. 3d 72, 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).1 As such, we reverse and remand for the trial court to correct its written sentence to comply with its orally pronounced sentence and section 921.16, Florida Statutes. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. LEVINE…
Previewing 3 of 6 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)
- Moreland v. State, 853 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)