ANTHONY ETWANN WILSON
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's written sentencing order conflicts with its oral pronouncement of sentence, the oral pronouncement controls and any discrepancy in the written documents constitutes a scrivener's error requiring correction.
[1] When a trial court's written sentencing order conflicts with the oral pronouncement of sentence, the oral pronouncement controls and discrepancies in the written document…
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“Where a trial court's written sentencing order conflicts with the oral pronouncement, the oral pronouncement controls.”
Court's statement of controlling law from Santiago v. State, 133 So. 3d 1159, 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).
Wilson was convicted of trafficking in phenethylamines after his motion to suppress was denied. The trial court orally pronounced $100 in costs of pro…
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 Costs Of Prosecution cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
ANTHONY ETWANN WILSON, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
No. 4D2024-0417
[April 30, 2025]
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County; William L. Roby, Judge; L.T. Case No. 432022CF000915A.
Daniel Eisinger, Public Defender, and Ian Seldin, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Zi Jin Peter Chan, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals the denial of his motion to suppress, after which he entered a plea to trafficking in phenethylamines. We affirm without comment. We write only to address appellant’s claim that the written sentencing order, which imposed $200 in costs of prosecution, conflicts with the trial court’s oral pronouncement, which imposed $100 in costs of prosecution. The state concedes error. “Where a trial court’s written sentencing order conflicts with the oral pronouncement, the oral pronouncement controls.” Santiago v. State, 133 So. 3d 1159, 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). Accordingly, we affirm appellant’s judgment and sentence but remand for correction of the scrivener’s error to reflect the amount of prosecution costs orally pronounced. See Abraham v. State, 360 So. 3d 1147, 1149 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) (“[W]hen the trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence and the written sentencing documents conflict, ‘[t]he error in the written documents constitutes a scrivener’s error that must be corrected so that the written documents comport with the sentence orally imposed.’”) (quoting Bryant v. State, 301 So. 3d 352, 353 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)).
2
Affirmed and remanded with instructions.
MAY, LEVINE and ARTAU, JJ., concur.
* * *
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.