ALTON JAMAL RIVERA, A/K/A ALTON ANDERSON, 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 while the revocation of community control and sentences are affirmed, a scrivener's error in the written sentences requires remand for correction.
Alton Jamal Rivera admitted to violating his community control in three circuit court cases. The trial court revoked his control and orally pronounced…
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 Revocation Of Community Control cases and more on FLexlaw
In this Anders1 appeal, Alton Jamal Rivera challenges the revocation of his community control and the sentences imposed upon revocation in three separate circuit court cases. We affirm the revocation of Rivera’s community control and his sentences without further comment. However, we remand for correction of a scrivener’s error in the written sentences in two of the cases.
In circuit court case number 10-CF-14489, Rivera was on community control for two second-degree felonies (counts 1 and 3), and one third-degree felony (count 4). In circuit court case number 10-CF-16592, Rivera was on community control for one second-degree felony (count 1) and one third-degree felony (count 2). After Rivera admitted to violating his community control, the trial court revoked it and orally sentenced Rivera to 77.7 months in prison on the second-degree felony convictions and 60 months in prison on the third-degree felony convictions. Despite these oral pronouncements, the written sentences reflect 77.7 months’ imprisonment 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). In all other respects, we affirm.
Affirmed and remanded with instructions.
ALTENBERND and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Tecoy Marquis Campbell v. State, 139 So. 3d 490 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…if necessary. See Nelson v. State, 1 So. 3d 345, 345 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (“A written sentence must comport with the sentence that was orally pronounced, and when the two are inconsistent, the oral pronouncement controls.”); see also Rivera v. State, 117 So. 3d 449, 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (“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.”). In ground five of his motion, Campbell ar…
-
Devlin v. State, 224 So. 3d 803 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…m of imprisonment not exceeding one year for a first-degree misdemeanor); 812.014(2)(e), Fla. Stat. (2015). Consequently, remand is required to ensure that the written sentence comports with the trial court’s oral pronouncement. See Rivera v. State, 117 So. 3d 449, 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (“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.”). Because correction of these scrivener’s…
-
Busbee v. State, 187 So. 3d 1266 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…all of the counts in which the oral pronouncements were inconsistent with the written sentences, the oral pronouncements were legal. However, the written sentences must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncements. See, e.g., Rivera v. State, 117 So. 3d 449, 449-50 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). Accordingly, we vacate all of the petitioner’s sentences except for the sentence in the first count of lower tribunal case number ll-CF-1166,1 which was legal [*1272] even without the HFO designation, and remand for rese…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Rivera v. State, 34 So. 3d 207 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Askia Jahbred Holmes v. State, 84 So. 3d 421 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)