NYJUAN BERNARD WALLER
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 sentencing conditions controls over any written sentencing documents, and a scrivener's error in the written probation order must be corrected to reflect the oral pronouncement.
[1] A trial court's oral pronouncement of sentencing conditions controls over any written sentencing documents, and scrivener's errors in written probation orders must be cor…
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 court's oral pronouncement controls over any written sentencing documents”
Citation to Spatcher v. State regarding the hierarchy of sentencing pronouncements
Waller was sentenced by the trial court, which orally prohibited him from having any contact with the victim. However, the written order of probation …
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 No-Contact Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), we affirm Waller’s judgment and sentence but remand for the trial court to correct a scrivener’s error in the written order of probation. While the transcript from the sentencing hearing shows that the trial court orally prohibited Waller from having any contact with the victim, the written order of probation does not include this special condition. The written order of probation should be corrected to prohibit Waller from having any contact with the victim. See Spatcher v. State, 228 So. 3d 1162, 1163 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (reaffirming that a court’s oral pronouncement controls over any written sentencing documents).
AFFIRMED and REMANDED.
RAY, C.J., and KELSEY and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________
Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Megan Long, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Spatcher v. State, 228 So. 3d 1162 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)