WILLIE SOL
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Willie Sol appealed his sentence after pleading open to burglary, grand theft, and possession of burglary tools, raising four trial court errors. The court affirmed three issues without discussion but agreed with Sol and the State that remand was necessary to correct a scrivener's error in the written sentencing order for the burglary charge. The trial court orally stated it did not find an enhanced habitual felony offender sentence necessary for public protection, but the written order incorrectly reflected an extended sentence.
The court affirmed the trial court's decision on three of Sol's four issues. As to the fourth issue, the court agreed with Sol and the State that the case must be remanded for the trial court to correct the written sentencing order to conform to the oral pronouncement, deleting the language for an enhanced sentence as a habitual felony offender.
[1] When a trial court's oral pronouncement of sentence conflicts with its written sentencing order, the oral pronouncement controls and the written order must be corrected t…
[2] Correction of a sentencing order to conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement is a ministerial act that does not require the defendant's presence.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“Any difference between the trial court's oral pronouncement and its written order is resolved in favor of the oral pronouncement.”
Citing Harder v. State, 14 So. 3d 1291, 1293 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
Sol entered an open plea to burglary of a structure, grand theft, and possession of burglary tools. The trial court sentenced Sol as a habitual felony…
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 Enhanced Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
CONNER, J.
Willie Sol appeals his sentence after entering an open plea to burglary of a structure, grand theft, and possession of burglary tools. Sol asserts four issues of trial court error, one of which the State concedes. Because three of the issues raised by Sol are without merit, we affirm the trial court’s ruling as to those issues without discussion. As to the fourth issue, we agree with Sol and the State that we should remand for correction of Sol’s sentence on the burglary charge.
The trial court sentenced Sol as a habitual felony offender on the burglary count, but did “not believe that it is necessary for the protection of the public to sentence [Sol] to an enhanced sentence.” However, the written sentencing order for the burglary count stated that:
The Defendant is adjudicated a habitual felony offender and has been sentenced to an extended term in accordance with the provisions of section 775.084(4)(a), Florida Statutes. The requisite findings by the Court are set forth in a separate order or stated on the record in Open Court.
(emphasis added).
Section 775.084, Florida Statutes, states that a “habitual felony offender” is “a defendant for whom the court may impose an extended term of imprisonment.” § 775.084(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2015) (emphasis added). Section 775.084 also states that the trial “court must sentence the defendant as a habitual felony offender . . . unless the court finds that such sentence is not necessary for the protection of the public.” § 775.084(3)(a)6., Fla. Stat. (2015) (emphases added).
“Any difference between the trial court’s oral pronouncement and its written order is resolved in favor of the oral pronouncement.” Harder v. State, 14 So. 3d 1291, 1293 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). Therefore, as the State agrees, the case is remanded for the trial court to correct the error in the written sentence and delete the language for an enhanced sentence as a habitual felony offender. We agree with the State that Sol’s presence is not necessary to correct this scrivener’s error. See Frost v. State, 769 So. 2d 443, 444 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (“Accordingly, this case is remanded with instructions for the written sentence to be conformed to the oral pronouncement. Upon remand, appellant need not be present for the correction of the sentence since correction is merely a ministerial act.”).
Affirmed and remanded with instructions. TAYLOR and KUNTZ, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Donell Dowell v. State, 393 So. 3d 274 (Fla. 5th DCA 2025)
-
Parker v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)
-
Kleckley v. State (S.D. Fla. 2022)
Authorities Cited
- Rudder v. State, 769 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Harder v. State, 14 So. 3d 1291 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)