ELTON NAVARE ALLEN TAYLOR
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 does not orally specify whether sentences run concurrently or consecutively but its written order indicates consecutive sentences, the written sentence must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement, and absent specification, offenses in the same indictment must run concurrently under Florida Statute § 921.16(1).
[1] When a trial court fails to specify orally whether sentences for multiple offenses charged in the same indictment run concurrently or consecutively, the written sentencin…
[2] Consecutive sentences for offenses charged in the same indictment must be expressly directed by the court; absent such direction, sentences are presumed to run concurrent…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“Sentences for offenses charged in the same indictment must be served 'concurrently unless the court directs that two or more of the sentences be served consecutively.' § 921.16(1), Fla. Stat. (2018).”
Court explaining the statutory requirement for concurrent sentences absent specific direction from the trial court.
The defendant was convicted of first-degree murder, false imprisonment, burglary, three counts of aggravated assault, and felon in possession of a fir…
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 Sentencing Error cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. Appellant appeals his conviction for first-degree murder, false imprisonment, burglary, three counts of aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm by a felon. He is currently serving two consecutive life sentences, four consecutive five-year sentences, and a consecutive fifteen-year sentence. Appellant raises a number of issues on appeal regarding the introduction of evidence pertaining to a restraining order the victim had against him, improper closing arguments, and the denial of a requested jury instruction. We find these arguments to be without merit and affirm appellant’s convictions without further discussion. However, we reverse for the trial court to correct an error in appellant’s sentence. During its sentencing pronouncement, the trial court did not specify whether the aggravated assault sentences were to run concurrently or consecutively to one another, but it then issued a written sentence indicating that they were to run consecutively. Appellant preserved the issue by filing a motion to correct sentencing error.
2
Sentences for offenses charged in the same indictment must be served “concurrently unless the court directs that two or more of the sentences be served consecutively.” § 921.16(1), Fla. Stat. (2018). Additionally, a trial court’s written sentence must conform to its orally pronounced sentence. See Marshall v. State, 78 So. 3d 72, 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).1 As such, we reverse and remand for the trial court to correct its written sentence to comply with its orally pronounced sentence and section 921.16, Florida Statutes. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. LEVINE, C.J., KUNTZ, J., and BOATWRIGHT, JOE, Associate Judge, concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.