JESSE HARRISON LUSK
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.
An orally pronounced sentence controls when there is a discrepancy between the oral sentence and the written sentence, and correction of the written sentence to conform to the oral sentence is a ministerial act.
[1] When a discrepancy exists between an orally pronounced sentence and a written sentence, the oral sentence controls, and correction of the written sentence to conform to t…
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“written sentences are usually just a record of the actual sentence required to be pronounced in open court”
The court explained why oral sentences control over written sentences in cases of discrepancy.
Jesse Harrison Lusk appealed from a judgment entered by the Circuit Court for Walton County. The appeal involved a discrepancy between an orally prono…
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.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D18-3379 _____________________________
JESSE HARRISON LUSK,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee. _____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Walton County. Kelvin C. Wells, Judge.
March 26, 2020
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See State v. Akins, 69 So. 3d 261, 269, 271 (Fla. 2011) (concluding that an orally pronounced sentence controls when there is a discrepancy between the oral sentence and written sentence as “written sentences are usually just a record of the actual sentence required to be pronounced in open court”) (quoting Ashley v. State, 850 So. 2d 1265, 1268 (Fla. 2003)); see also Parker v. State, 276 So. 3d 108, 109 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (describing the correction of a written sentence to conform to the oral sentence to be “merely a ministerial act”) (quoting Frost v. State, 769 So. 2d 443, 444 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)). OSTERHAUS, KELSEY, and NORDBY, JJ., concur.
2
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________
Michael Ufferman of Michael Ufferman Law Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Sharon S. Traxler, 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)
- State v. Akins, 69 So. 3d 261 (Fla. 2011)