WHIPPLE
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.
When a trial court orally pronounces jail credit on each count of consecutive sentences, the oral pronouncement controls over written sentencing documents that omit such credit, and the trial court must correct the documents to reflect the oral pronouncement.
[1] When a trial court orally pronounces jail credit on each term of consecutive prison sentences imposed on multiple counts, the oral pronouncement controls over written sen…
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 a sentence controls over the written sentencing form.”
Establishing the controlling authority for resolving discrepancies between oral pronouncements and written sentencing documents.
Appellant was sentenced on 99 counts of bad-check-related offenses to 5 years each, with the first four counts consecutive and counts 4-99 concurrent.…
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 Probation Violation Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D2022-4117 _____________________________
BRENDA SUE WHIPPLE,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee. _____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County. Jennie Kinsey, Judge.
June 12, 2024
OSTERHAUS, C.J.
Brenda Sue Whipple contends that a discrepancy between the court’s oral pronouncement at her criminal sentencing and the written sentencing documents unlawfully increased her sentence. She appealed after her motion to correct sentencing error was denied. We agree with her and reverse because the trial court’s oral pronouncement awarded jail credit that was omitted from the written sentencing documents.
I.
After Appellant admitted a violation of probation, the trial court sentenced her on 99 counts of bad-check-related offenses. The court sentenced her to 5 years in prison for each count, with the first four counts to run consecutively and counts 4-99 to run
II.
Because Appellant’s motion to correct a sentencing error involves a pure issue of law, our standard of review is de novo. See, e.g., Ray v. State, 68 So. 3d 346, 347 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Announcing Appellant’s sentence on 99 counts at her sentencing hearing, the trial court awarded jail credit of 129 days for “each of those counts.” This was a proper sentence. It both clearly pronounced an award of jail credit and permissibly applied credit to “each of” the counts for which Appellant received consecutive sentences. See, e.g., Canete v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 967 So. 2d 412, 416 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (recognizing the discretion of trial courts to award jail credit against each term of consecutive prison sentences on multiple charges). But then, the written documents recorded a different sentence that removed Appellant’s 129 days of jail credit from all counts but the first. This was problematic because “the oral pronouncement of a sentence controls over the written sentencing form.” Morris v. State, 292 So. 3d 838, 839 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020); Ashley v. State, 850 So. 2d 1265, 1268 (Fla. 2003); see also Bryant v. State, 302 So. 3d 995, 1000 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (recognizing after oral pronouncement that “even though a defendant has no right to have jail credit for time served awarded on each sentence when consecutive sentences are imposed, the rescission of previously awarded jail credit constitutes an increased penalty and violates a defendant’s rights under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”).
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________
Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Joel Arnold, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and David Welch, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Columbus Rickey Ashley v. State, 850 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 2003)
- RAY v. State, 68 So. 3d 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)