LETITIA NANETTE LOLLIS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Written Sentencing Documents cases and more on FLexlaw
Letitia Nanette Lollis appeals her convictions for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, tampering with a witness, petit theft, uttering a forged instrument, and fraudulent use of personal information. We affirm her convictions without further discussion. However, Lollis argues and the State properly concedes that we must reverse her sentences for the uttering and fraudulent use charges because the trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence differs from the written sentencing documents. Specifically, the written sentencing documents do not include the qualifying conditions orally announced by the court that Lollis’s prison sentences are to be suspended after three years in favor of two years’ probation on the uttering and fraudulent use charges. A trial court’s written sentence must conform to its oral pronouncement; when the two differ, that constitutes reversible error. See Rivera v. State, 34 So.3d 207, 208 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). Accordingly, we reverse this portion of Lollis’s sentence and remand for the trial court to enter an amended sentence consistent with its oral pronouncement.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
KELLY and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…pronouncement, we reverse the inconsistent portion of the sentence and remand for entry of an amended sentence that reflects the proper designation as a violent felony offender of special concern, removing the word "habitual." See Lollis v. State, 169 So. 3d 277, 277 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (reversing a portion of the sentence and remanding for entry of an amended sentence consistent with the oral pronouncement). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. VILLANTI and SMITH, JJ., Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Rivera v. State, 34 So. 3d 207 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)