RAYMOND R. HETMAN, 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.
Raymond Hetman appealed his guilty plea convictions and sentences in four circuit court cases involving burglary, theft, and failure to appear charges. The appellate court found no substantive issues with the convictions or sentences but identified and corrected scrivener's errors in the written sentencing documents where PRR (prison releasee reoffender) designations were incorrectly applied to theft counts despite the oral pronouncement limiting such designations to burglary counts only.
The court affirmed all convictions and sentences except for the petit theft and grand theft counts in cases 12-1292CFAWS and 12-1294CFAWS, reversing those sentences to remove the written PRR designations and conform them to the trial court's oral pronouncement. The court found clear scrivener's error where PRR designations appeared on written sentences for offenses to which the trial court did not orally apply such designations.
[1] A scrivener's error in a written sentence may be corrected to conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement.
[2] A handwritten designation on a written sentence that is not supported by the oral pronouncement constitutes a scrivener's error.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Applying the PRR designations to the grand theft and petit theft counts is clearly a scrivener's error.”
Establishes the court's determination that the written sentencing documents contained clear clerical errors by applying PRR designations to counts not orally designated as such by the trial court
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHetman pleaded guilty to multiple counts across four cases: two counts of burglary and one count of petit theft in case 12-1292CFAWS; two counts of bu…
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 Anders V. California cases and more on FLexlaw
We réview this case pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Raymond Hetman challenges the judgments and sentences'he received in four circuit court cases after he pleaded guilty to one count of burglary of a dwelling and one count of petit theft in 12-1292CFAWS, one count of burglary of a dwelling' and one count of grand theft in 12-1294CFAWS, one count of burglary of a dwelling in 12-1052CFAWS, and one count of failure to appear in 12-2657CFAWS.1 He entered a plea of guilty to all counts in exchange for concurrent prison sentences consisting of fifteen years on each of the three burglary counts — with designations as a prison releasee reoffen-der (PRR) on those counts, five years each for the grand theft and failure to appear counts — both without PRR designations, and time served for the petit theft count— without a PRR designation. We find no issues related to any of his convictions or with the sentences orally imposed and write only to direct the.-correction of a scrivener’s error appearing on the face of his written sentences in two of the circuit court cases.
With the exception of the written sentence in case number 12-2657CFAWS, the written sentences in each of Hetman’s cases incltide the handwritten words “prison releasee reoffender” at the top of every page of the’ sentencing documents. Despite the fact that the transcripts of the sentencing hearing reflect that the trial court applied the PRR designations only to the three burglary counts, those portions of' the written sentences related' to the counts of petit theft in 12-1292CFAWS and grand theft in 12-1294CFAWS also include this handwritten designation and do not otherwise delineate that the designation applies only to the burglary counts. Applying the PRR designations to the grand theft and petit theft counts is clearly a scrivener’s error. Accordingly, we reverse only the sentences for the grand theft and petit theft counts in 12-1292CFAWS and 12-1294CFAWS -and direct the trial court to remove the written PRR designation for those offenses, in conformity with the trial court’s oral pronouncement of the sentences. See Rivera v. State, 117 So.3d 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). We affirm in all other respects.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded with instructions.
ALTENBERND and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ulysses Taylor, JR. v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…hat a court's oral pronouncement of a sentence controls over the written sentencing document."). Therefore, we remand for correction of the judgment and sentence to reflect that Taylor was sentenced as a PRR on count two only. See Hetman v. State, 185 So. 3d 644, 644 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (directing trial court to remove erroneous PRR designations in conformity with the trial court's oral pronouncement of sentences); see also Herrera v. State, 276 So. 3d 60, 60 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (affirming an order denying re…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Alton Jamal Rivera v. State, 117 So. 3d 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)