DENNY RAY HUGHES, 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.
Hughes appealed a sentencing decision in a grand theft case, arguing that the written judgment orders failed to reflect the trial court's oral pronouncements regarding concurrent sentencing, fines reduced to a civil lien, and correct statutory subsections. The appellate court agreed that the written orders required correction to conform to the oral pronouncements and remanded for correction of the judgment orders.
The appellate court held that Hughes is entitled to relief and remanded for correction of the written judgment orders. The orders must be corrected to reflect the oral pronouncement that fines and costs be reduced to a civil lien, correct the statutory subsections on counts 8-10, and clearly state that sentences on each count run concurrently with sentences on all other counts. No resentencing is required.
[1] A written sentencing order must accurately reflect the trial court's oral pronouncement regarding the reduction of fines and costs to a civil lien.
[2] Criminal judgments must list the correct statutory subsections for the offenses of conviction.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Hughes is entitled to relief. The written judgment does not reflect the oral pronouncement of the fines and costs being reduced to a civil lien.”
Establishes the core issue and that the appellate court found in Hughes's favor on the civil lien matter
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHughes entered a no contest plea to multiple counts of second and third degree grand theft pursuant to a plea agreement. The trial court orally pronou…
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 Written Order cases and more on FLexlaw
Hughes entered a plea of no contest to multiple counts of second and third degree grand theft. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court sentenced the defendant to six years in prison followed by six years of probation on counts 2 through 7; and to five years in prison on counts 8 through 10.1 The court orally pronounced that the sentences were to run concurrently to each other. _ Finally, the trial court imposed a fine on each count, mandatory court costs, and costs of prosecution, all of which the court pronounced would be reduced to a civil lien.
Following the entry of the written sentencing orders, the defendant moved for correction of sentence pursuant to rule 3.800(b)(2), requesting that: 1) the written orders reflect the oral pronouncement that the costs and fines be reduced to a civil lien; 2) the judgments reflect the correct statutory subsections (as alleged in the information) for his convictions on counts 8 through 10; and 3) the written sentencing orders reflect the court’s oral pronouncement that the sentence for each count shall run concurrently with all other counts. The trial court failed to rule on the motion within sixty days, which acted as a defacto denial. See Fla R. Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2)(B).
Hughes is entitled to relief. The written judgment does not reflect the oral pronouncement of the fines and costs being reduced to a civil lien. Additionally, the judgment does not list the correct statute violations on counts 8 through 10. On remand, the judgment orders should be corrected to reflect the oral pronouncement and the correct statute numbers.
Finally, while section 921.16(1), Florida Statutes (2013), requires that Hughes’ sentences for counts 2 through 10 be treated as concurrent sentences2, the manner in which the judgment orders on each individual count were prepared lends more to confusion than clarity. The trial court should correct the judgments to state clearly that the sentence on each count is to run concurrently to the sentences on all other counts.
Hughes does not claim that he was sentenced improperly and we do not reverse for resentencing. However, we remand for correction of the judgment orders to conform as directed above. Hughes need not be present when these changes are made.
Remanded for further proceedings.
GROSS and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.