RANDALL C. WHITNEY, 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.
A written sentence that conflicts with the oral pronouncement is illegal and must be corrected.
Appellant sought to correct his sentence, alleging a discrepancy between the oral and written probation conditions regarding contact with his wife. Th…
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 Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
On May 6, 2002, Appellant pled no contest to sexual battery, and, based on the negotiated plea, the trial court sentenced him to 12 years’ imprisonment followed by 18 years’ probation. The court imposed a condition of probation curtailing Appellant’s ability to have contact with his wife. Appellant’s appeal from the conviction and sentence was dismissed as untimely.
In June 2012, Appellant filed a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) to correct his sentence, alleging that the court’s oral and written pronouncements of the condition prohibiting contact with Appellant’s wife differ. Appellant asserted that although the court orally permitted limited contact with his wife as necessary for the couple’s divorce proceedings, the written order contains a blanket prohibition of contact. The trial court denied Appellant’s motion, finding that the oral pronouncement is clear, and that the assistant state attorney had contacted Appellant’s probation officer, who affirmed that he will permit Appellant to have contact with his wife only as needed to obtain the divorce.
“[A] written sentence that conflicts with the oral pronouncement of sentence imposed in open court is an illegal sentence.” Williams v. State, 957 So.2d 600, 603 (Fla.2007). Any discrepancy between the oral and written pronouncements is resolved in favor of the oral pronouncement. See id.; Harder v. State, 14 *1158So.3d 1291, 1293 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Appellant’s rule 3.800(a) motion, and remand for the trial court to enter a corrected order of probation clarifying the extent to which Appellant may have contact with his wife.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
BENTON, C.J., ROWE, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Clark v. State, 223 So. 3d 1126 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…tence. See Ramos v. State, 156 So. 3d 591, 591-92 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (mem.) (explaining “a discrepancy between the total amount orally announced and the total reflected in the written judgment and sentence” is a sentencing error); Whitney v. State, 108 So. 3d 1157, 1157-58 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (explaining a written sentence that differs from the oral pronouncement is an illegal sentence). . Accordingly, on the Court’s own motion and pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(g)(2)(B), the initial…
-
Clark v. State, 238 So. 3d 750 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)…e. See Ramos v. State, 156 So. 3d 591, 591-92 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (mem.) (explaining “a discrepancy between the total amount orally announced and the total reflected in the written judgment and sentence” is a sentencing error); Whitney v. State, 108 So. 3d 1157, 1157-58 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (explaining a written sentence that differs from the oral pronouncement is an illegal sentence). Accordingly, on the Court’s own motion and pursuant to Florida Rule of ---PAGE 3--- 3 Appellate Procedure 9.140(g)(2)…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 957 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2007)
- Harder v. State, 14 So. 3d 1291 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)