MIGUEL ROBERTSON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed the conviction without prejudice, allowing the defendant to file a motion to correct the sentence if the written order conflicts with the trial court's oral pronouncement.
A defendant may file a Rule 8.800(a) motion to correct a written sentence that conflicts with the trial court's oral pronouncement, and the oral pronouncement prevails over any conflicting written order.
[1] The oral pronouncement of sentence by a trial court prevails over a subsequent and conflicting written sentencing order, and any discrepancy requires correction of the wr…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 oral pronouncement of sentence prevails over a subsequent and conflicting written sentencing order.”
Establishing the rule that oral pronouncements control over written orders in sentencing.
Robertson was convicted and sentenced by the trial court, resulting in a written sentencing order.…
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 Correction Of Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
Affirmed without prejudice to the filing of a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 8.800(a) motion to correct the sentence imposed to accurately reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement. See Scott v. State, 109 So.3d 866, 866 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“The oral pronouncement of sentence prevails over a subsequent and conflicting written sentencing order.”); Wright v. State, 98 So.3d 1215, 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (“[A]ny discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and the written sentence requires the written sentence to be corrected to conform to the court’s oral pronouncement.”); see also Jackson v. State, 983 So.2d 562, 569, 572 (Fla.2008) (recognizing that claims that a defendant’s written order deviated from the oral pronouncement is subject to rule 3.800(b), whereby the failure to either object during the sentencing hearing or by rule 3.800(b) motion forecloses the issue from being raised on direct appeal); Brannon v. State, 850 So.2d 452, 456 (Fla.2003) (“[W]e hold that for defendants whose initial briefs were filed after the effective date of rule 3.800(b)(2), the failure to preserve a fundamental sentencing error by motion under rule 3.800(b) or by objection during the sentencing hearing forecloses them from raising the error on direct appeal.”); Sanders-Bashui v. State, 124 So.3d 1041, 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (same).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. State, 225 So. 3d 319 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…ce without prejudice to the filing of a rule 3.800(a) motion where written sentence did not conform to oral pronouncements and stating that “the trial court must correct the written sentences pursuant to a Rule 3.800(a) motion”); Robertson v. State, 134 So. 3d 548, 549 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (“Affirmed without prejudice to the filing of a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion to correct the sentence imposed to accurately reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement.”); Sanders-Bashui v. State, 124 So…
Authorities Cited
- Jackson v. State, 983 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 2008)
- Brannon v. State, 850 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 2003)
- Ashahleh Sanders-Bashui v. State, 124 So. 3d 1041 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)
- Mickey Woodson v. State, 109 So. 3d 866 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)
- Scott v. State, 109 So. 3d 866 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)
- Cornet v. State, 98 So. 3d 1215 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)
- Wright v. State, 98 So. 3d 1215 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)