MONTOYA
v.
STATE
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.
A probation condition imposing no contact with the victim's family must be reversed when the written sentencing order conflicts with the oral pronouncement and the oral pronouncement did not include such a condition.
[1] When a written sentencing order contains a probation condition that conflicts with the oral pronouncement of sentence, the oral pronouncement prevails and the conflicting…
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.”
Citation to Scott v. State establishing the rule that oral pronouncements control over conflicting written orders.
Andres Montoya was sentenced to community control and probation that included a written condition prohibiting direct or indirect contact with the vict…
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 Sentencing Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Based on the state’s confession of error, with which we agree, we reverse special condition twelve – “You will have no contact (direct or indirect) with the . .
. victim’s family during the period of probation” – in the community control and probation portion of defendant Andres Montoya’s sentence, and remand for the entry of a corrected order of probation that does not contain this condition. See Scott v. State, 109 So. 3d 866 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (“The State properly conceded that the trial court erred in imposing a written sentence that conflicts with the oral pronouncement. The written sentence designated the defendant both a prison releasee reoffender and a habitual felony offender. The oral pronouncement, however, reflects that the trial court designated the defendant a prison releasee reoffender only. The oral pronouncement of sentence prevails over a subsequent and conflicting written sentencing order.”). Montoya’s sentence is affirmed in all other respects.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Mickey Woodson v. State, 109 So. 3d 866 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)
- Scott v. State, 109 So. 3d 866 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)