R.L.F., 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 affirmed a juvenile delinquency disposition order imposing probation and costs, noting a potential discrepancy between the written and oral pronouncement of sentence but finding the error unpreserved and affirming without prejudice to raise it in a postconviction motion.
A discrepancy between written and oral sentencing pronouncements must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement, but failure to preserve the error through a motion to correct sentencing error results in affirmance without prejudice.
[1] A sentencing error based on discrepancy between written and oral pronouncement is not preserved for appellate review when the defendant fails to file a motion to correct…
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“If a discrepancy exists between the written sentence and the oral pronouncement, the written sentence must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement.”
Citing W.S.G. v. State for the rule governing sentencing discrepancies.
R.L.F. was found to have committed delinquent acts, adjudication was withheld, and he was placed on juvenile probation until age nineteen with special…
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 Withholding Adjudication Of Delinquency cases and more on FLexlaw
In this Anders1 appeal, R.L.F. appeals from a disposition order finding that he committed delinquent acts, withholding adjudication of delinquency, and placing him on juvenile probation until the age of nineteen with special conditions. We affirm in all respects but note that a possible sentencing error may exist in the actual disposition order.
The disposition order reflects that the trial court imposed a total of $200 in costs and fees, whereas the trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence imposed a total of $150 in “court costs.” See W.S.G. v. State, 32 So.3d 725, 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (“If a discrepancy exists between the written sentence and the oral pronouncement, the written sentence must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement.” (quoting Guerra v. State, 927 So.2d 248, 249 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006))). However, because R.L.F. failed to preserve this potential error by filing a motion to correct sentencing error, this court must affirm. See Thomas v. State, 190 So.3d 222, 223 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (affirming without prejudice the defendant’s sentence because even though the written sentence failed to comport with the trial court’s oral pronouncement, the defendant failed to properly preserve the sentencing error). Our affirmance is without prejudice for R.L.F. to raise this possible sentencing error in an appropriate posteonviction motion. See id.
Affirmed.
VILLANTI, KHOUZAM, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Guerra v. State, 927 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Khrystopher Wayne Tolley v. State, 32 So. 3d 725 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)
- Telly Jon Knott v. State, 190 So. 3d 222 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
- Thomas v. State, 190 So. 3d 222 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)
- W.S.G. v. State, 32 So. 3d 725 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)