TERRY CHRYSTIE, 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 court held that the oral pronouncement of sentence controls over conflicting written sentencing documents, and that supervision costs should be imposed per case, not per count.
[1] Where a conflict exists between the oral pronouncement of sentence and written sentencing documents, the oral pronouncement controls.
[2] A court must conform written sentencing documents to its oral pronouncement of sentence.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court orally reduced the appellant's cost of supervision to $25 per month for the first two years, but the written sentencing documents requ…
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 Written Sentencing Documents cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm Appellant’s convictions and sentences on all counts. We remand, however, with instructions that the court conform the written sentencing documents to the oral pronouncement.
At the sentencing hearing, with respect to counts three through nine, the court orally reduced Appellant’s cost of supervision to $25 per month, “at least for the, um, the first two years of restitution, uh, if restitution is being made at an appropriate pace, then the defendant can come back and seek, uh, further reduction on the cost of supervision at that point.” However, the written sentencing orders and conditions in the probation orders for counts two and sixteen require Appellant to pay $50 per month in supervision costs, as well as complete restitution to the victims within the first two years of supervision.
Where a conflict exists between the oral pronouncement of sentence and written sentencing documents, the oral pronouncement controls. Williams v. State, 957 So.2d 600, 603 (Fla.2007); Ashley v. State, 850 So.2d 1265, 1268 (Fla.2003). Appellant contends that special condition sixteen and general condition two, as written, should be stricken and amended to reflect the court’s oral pronouncement. The State appropriately concedes error.
Appellant also argues that the court erred in imposing the $50 monthly supervision cost in each of counts three through nine. He cites Stickles v. State, 44 So.3d 653, 654 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), for the proposition that costs may be imposed “per case” and not “per count.” Thus, he argues that in addition to reducing the supervision cost to $25 per month for the first two years as orally pronounced, the sentencing and probation documents must reflect that only one monthly cost amount is required for the case. Although the State contends that Stickles does not apply, it agrees that only one monthly supervision cost amount should be imposed in this case because the trial court clearly intended that Appellant pay a reduced cost of supervision.
AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.
SAWAYA, TORPY and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Haar v. State, 295 So. 3d 327 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)…alleges that, because this Court failed to orally pronounce costs for the Public Defender and prosecution, they must be stricken. Because these costs do not comport with this Court’s oral pronouncement, they must be stricken. See Chrystie v. State, 95 So. 3d 1027, 1028 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (citing Williams v. State, 957 So. 2d 600, 603 (Fla. 2007)). This request to strike costs is granted. (Emphasis added). How such orders are effectuated is helpful in understanding why there was a disconnect. Following the…1 / 2
-
Peterson v. State, 230 So. 3d 1274 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…id not suspend any portion of Appellant’s incarceration. Under these circumstances, “[w]here a conflict exists between the oral pronouncement of sen-, tence and [the] written sentencing documents, the oral pronouncement controls.” Chrystie v. State, 95 So. 3d 1027, 1028 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (citing Williams v. State, 957 So. 2d 600, 603 (Fla. 2007)). Because the trial' court’s oral pronouncements of sentences concltisively show that Appellant received “probationary”' split sentences, his present prison sentenc…
-
Fritztin Regisma v. State, 120 So. 3d 144 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…nouncement and written sentencing documents as to counts II and III are the result of clerical error, we remand with instructions for the trial court to modify its written sentencing order to conform to its oral pronouncement. See Chrystie v. State, 95 So. 3d 1027, 1028 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (“Where a conflict exists between the oral pronouncement of sentence and written sentencing documents, the oral pronouncement controls.” (citing Williams v. State, 957 So. 2d 600, 603 (Fla.2007)); Harmon v. State, 599 So. 2…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Columbus Rickey Ashley v. State, 850 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 2003)
- Williams v. State, 957 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2007)
- Stickles v. State, 44 So. 3d 653 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)