CHANCERY STURRUP
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, and discrepancies constitute clerical or ministerial errors correctable on remand.
[1] A trial court's oral pronouncement of sentence controls over and prevails over any conflicting written sentencing document, and discrepancies between the two constitute c…
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 trial court's 'oral pronouncement of a sentence controls over the written sentencing document.'”
Establishing the controlling legal principle regarding sentencing documents
Chancery Sturrup was convicted of various offenses arising from an armed carjacking. The trial court's written sentencing order did not conform to the…
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 Armed Carjacking cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
CHANCERY STURRUP, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
No. 4D2023-2804
[June 25, 2025]
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Timothy L. Bailey, Judge; L.T. Case No. 20- 005191CF10A.
Daniel Eisinger, Public Defender, and Sue-Ellen Kenny, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kimberly T. Acuña, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
ON CONFESSION OF ERROR
PER CURIAM.
The defendant appeals from his convictions and resulting sentences for various offenses arising from an armed carjacking. The defendant argues, as his only issue on appeal, that the trial court’s written sentencing order does not conform to the oral pronouncement of sentence with respect to the length of the sentence imposed on the armed carjacking count (Count 2).
A trial court’s “oral pronouncement of a sentence controls over the written sentencing document.” Williams v. State, 957 So. 2d 600, 603 (Fla. 2007); see also, e.g., Moreland v. State, 853 So. 2d 574, 575 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (“This court has consistently held that an oral pronouncement at sentencing prevails over a written order.”).
We therefore accept the State’s concession of error and remand this case to the trial court for the ministerial act of conforming the written
2
sentencing order to the oral pronouncement of sentence on the armed carjacking count (Count 2). See, e.g., Migdal v. State, 970 So. 2d 445, 448- 49 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (characterizing “a mistake in the written sentence that is at variance with the oral pronouncement of sentence or the record” as a “clerical or ministerial error[] in a criminal case” (quoting Ashley v. State, 850 So. 2d 1265, 1268 n.3 (Fla. 2003))). Because correcting the sentence is a purely ministerial act, the defendant does not need to be present for it. See, e.g., Jordan v. State, 143 So. 3d 335, 339 (Fla. 2014) (recognizing that a defendant need not be present for a purely ministerial sentence correction). In all other respects, we affirm.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
GROSS, CONNER and ARTAU, JJ., concur.
* * *
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Columbus Rickey Ashley v. State, 850 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 2003)
- Williams v. State, 957 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2007)
- Jordan v. State, 143 So. 3d 335 (Fla. 2014)
- Moreland v. State, 853 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Migdal v. State, 970 So. 2d 445 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)