ASKIA JAHBRED HOLMES, 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.
Holmes appealed his probation revocation and convictions for multiple felonies across several cases. The appellate court affirmed the probation revocation and convictions but remanded one case for correction of the written sentencing document to remove an improperly applied 10-20-Life enhancement that the trial court had already orally vacated.
The court affirmed Holmes's convictions and sentences in all cases. However, the court remanded case number 09-6141 for correction of the written sentencing document to delete the reference to the 10-20-Life enhancement for armed burglary of a dwelling, robbery with a firearm, aggravated battery with a firearm, and grand theft motor vehicle to conform to the oral pronouncement.
[1] A written sentencing document must conform to the oral pronouncement of the sentence.
[2] A defendant may preserve an issue regarding sentencing error by filing a motion to correct sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) dur…
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“the trial court granted Holmes's motion for a judgment of acquittal on the issue of whether Holmes actually carried a firearm during the commission of the armed burglary, robbery, aggravated battery, and grand theft motor vehicle”
Establishes the basis for the trial court's oral pronouncement eliminating the 10-20-Life enhancement
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHolmes was convicted of armed burglary of a dwelling, robbery with a firearm, aggravated battery with a firearm, false imprisonment, and grand theft m…
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 Oral Pronouncement Vs. Written Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
Askia Jahbred Holmes appeals the revocation of his probation and resulting sentences for numerous charges in circuit court case numbers 05-16428, 08-11064, and 08-11065. We affirm the revocation and sentences in those cases without further comment.
In circuit court case number 09-6141, Holmes appeals his convictions and sentences for armed burglary of a dwelling, robbery with a firearm, aggravated battery with a firearm, false imprisonment, and grand theft motor vehicle. We affirm the convictions and sentences, but we remand for correction of the written sentencing document to conform to the oral pronouncement on the sentences for armed burglary of a dwelling, robbery with a firearm, aggravated battery with a firearm, and grand theft motor vehicle.
At trial, the trial court granted Holmes’s motion for a judgment of acquittal on the issue of whether Holmes actually carried a firearm during the commission of the armed burglary, robbery, aggravated battery, and grand theft motor vehicle. In doing so, the trial court recognized that the 10-20-Life enhancement pursuant to section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (2008), would no longer apply. However, the written sentencing document reflected that the enhancement was applied to Holmes’s sentences for the referenced offenses.
Holmes preserved this issue by filing a motion to correct sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) during the pendency of this appeal, and a filing by the clerk of the circuit court indicates that the postconviction court orally granted the motion. However the written sentencing document was never corrected, and in July 2011, this court entered an order deeming the rule 3.800(b)(2) motion to be denied.
The State concedes that the reference to the enhancement is improper. We therefore remand Holmes’s sentences for armed burglary of a dwelling, robbery with a firearm, aggravated battery with a firearm, and grand theft motor vehicle for the limited purpose of the correction of the written sentencing document to conform to the oral pronouncement by the deletion of the reference to the 10-20-Life enhancement. See Rivera v. State, 34 So.3d 207, 208 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (recognizing that written sentence must conform to oral pronouncement).
Affirmed but remanded for correction of the written sentences.
WHATLEY and KELLY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alton Jamal Rivera v. State, 117 So. 3d 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…ent on all counts in both of these cases.2 Because the written sentences do not comport with the trial court’s oral pronouncement, we must remand for correction of the written sentences to reflect the oral pronouncement. See, e.g., Holmes v. State, 84 So. 3d 421, 422 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (remanding for correction of written sentences to conform to oral pronouncements); Rivera v. State, 34 So. 3d 207, 208 [*450] (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (recognizing that the written sentences must conform to the oral pronouncement).…
-
Ygnacio Sanchez v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…tory maximum of thirty years contained in section 775.082."); see also Rivera v. State, 117 - 3 - So. 3d 449, 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (affirming but remanding for correction of written sentence to conform to the oral pronouncement); Holmes v. State, 84 So. 3d 421, 422 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (same). Affirmed and remanded with instructions. KHOUZAM, C.J., and KELLY, JJ., Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Rivera v. State, 34 So. 3d 207 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)