CARL INGRAHAM
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.
A trial court's oral pronouncement of sentence controls over the written sentencing document when the two conflict.
[1] A trial court's oral pronouncement of sentence controls over the written sentencing document when the two conflict, requiring remand for correction.
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“a court's oral pronouncement of a sentence controls over the written sentencing document”
The court cited Williams v. State, 957 So. 2d 600, 603 (Fla. 2007) for the principle that oral pronouncements control written documents in sentencing.
Ingraham was convicted of DUI manslaughter, vehicular homicide, and DUI causing serious bodily injury following a fatal crash. The trial court imposed…
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 Appellate Review Of Criminal Convictions cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
CARL INGRAHAM, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
No. 4D2025-0426
[June 3, 2026]
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Michael James Linn, Judge; L.T. Case No. 562017CF001431AXXXXX.
Daniel Eisinger, Public Defender, and Siobhan Shea, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Pablo Ignacio Tapia, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant raises five issues on appeal arising from his convictions for DUI manslaughter, vehicular homicide, and DUI causing serious bodily injury following a fatal crash. With one exception, we affirm without comment.
As to sentencing, the State properly concedes error regarding certain costs because “a court's oral pronouncement of a sentence controls over the written sentencing document.” Williams v. State, 957 So. 2d 600, 603 (Fla. 2007). We therefore reverse and remand for correction of costs only.
We otherwise affirm.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
CIKLIN, GERBER and LOTT, JJ., concur.
* * *
Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.