ERNST EXAVIER, 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.
The Fourth District affirmed the defendant's racketeering conviction on three grounds of appeal but reversed and remanded the sentencing order to the extent it imposed an additional $100 in prosecution costs beyond the oral pronouncement of $4,000.
When a discrepancy exists between the written sentence and oral pronouncement, the oral pronouncement prevails, requiring vacation of the additional $100 prosecution cost assessment.
[1] When a discrepancy exists between the written sentence and the oral pronouncement of sentence, the oral pronouncement prevails and controls the judgment.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceErnst Exavier was convicted of racketeering. The trial court imposed costs of prosecution orally stated as $4,000 but later entered a written order as…
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 Costs Of Prosecution cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant appeals his conviction for racketeering. He argues that the trial court erred in: (1) denying his motion for judgment of acquittal; (2) admitting into evidence certain of his and his associates’ past judgments of convictions; (3) overruling his objection to a question which the state posed to a witness; and (4) entering an order for costs of prosecution in the amount of $4,000 and a separate order assessing an additional $100 for costs of prosecution where its oral pronouncement was that it would impose costs of prosecution in the amount of $4,000.
As to the first three arguments, we affirm without discussion. As to the fourth argument, the state properly concedes error. See State v. Akins, 69 So.3d 261, 269 (Fla.2011) (“[Wjhen there is a discrepancy between the written sentence and the oral pronouncement, the oral pronouncement prevails.”) (citation and internal quotations omitted). Accordingly, we reverse on this fourth argument only and remand to the trial court with directions to vacate that portion of the order assessing additional charges which included an additional $100 for costs of prosecution.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
TAYLOR, GERBER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ladarius Brooks v. State, 199 So. 3d 974 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…not enter a plea. ' According to the record on appeal, this motion was never ruled upon and is therefore deemed denied due to the trial court’s failure to rule upon it within sixty (60) days. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2)(B); see also Dabel v. State, 79 So. 3d 873, 874 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (stating the same). “Because a motion to correct a sentencing error involves a pure issue of law, our standard of review is de novo.” Smith v. State, 143 So. 3d 1023, 1024 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (quoting Salter v. State, 77 So.…
-
Rodriguez v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)
Authorities Cited
- State v. Akins, 69 So. 3d 261 (Fla. 2011)