GLENN DAVID SANCHEZ, 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 written judgments and sentences are affirmed because they are legal and the correction of an error in the oral pronouncement did not prejudice the appellant.
The appellant pleaded guilty to robbery and unauthorized use of a credit card. The plea agreement and oral pronouncement misclassified the credit card…
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 Misdemeanor Classification cases and more on FLexlaw
Glenn David Sanchez appeals his judgments and sentences for robbery with a firearm and unauthorized use of a credit card. We affirm but write to explain the discrepancy between the oral and written sentence for one offense.
Mr. Sanchez pleaded open to these two offenses in a written plea agreement. The plea agreement incorrectly described the unauthorized use of a credit card as a third-degree felony when, in light of the allegations in the information, it was actually a second-degree misdemeanor. See § 817.481(3)(b), Fla. Stat. (2010); § 812.014(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2011). This error in the plea agreement caused the trial judge at the hearing to describe the crime as a felony and to inform Mr. Sanchez that it was punishable by up to five years in prison. The trial judge then orally sentenced Mr. Sanchez to ten years’ imprisonment followed by five years’ probation for the robbery and a concurrent five-year term of imprisonment for the unauthorized use of a credit card.
At some point, someone must have noticed the error in the plea agreement and the sentence that was orally imposed. The written judgment accurately reflects that the credit card crime is a misdemeanor and Mr. Sanchez was sentenced to time served for that offense. It is noteworthy that Mr. Sanchez also received 360 days of jail credit on his sentence for the robbery and that these sentences are directed to run concurrently with ten-year sentences of imprisonment for other offenses that were imposed about four months prior to this sentencing hearing.
Given that Mr. Sanchez had no plea agreement for any specific sentence, that the written sentences are legal, and that the correction from the oral pronouncement does not appear to prejudice Mr. Sanchez in any way, we affirm the judgments and sentences.
Affirmed.
CASANUEVA and MORRIS, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Taylor v. State, 132 So. 3d 882 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…reappoint counsel for Mr. Taylor. Reversed and remanded. WALLACE and BLACK, JJ., Concur. . Mr. Sanchez’s appeal involved a discrepancy between his oral and written sentence, an issue that is not present in Mr. Taylor’s case. See Sanchez v. State, 124 So. 3d 406 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). It does not appear that Mr. Noriega appealed his judgment and sentence. . This motion filed by Mr. Taylor is similar to a motion to withdraw plea filed pursuant to [*885] Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(a)(5), in that b…