JOSE E. MORALES
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 oral pronouncement of sentence conflicts with written sentencing orders, the oral pronouncement controls, and written orders imposing fines inconsistent with that pronouncement must be corrected as scrivener's error.
[1] When an oral pronouncement of sentence differs from the written sentencing order, the oral pronouncement controls.
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“the oral pronouncement of a $50,000 fine controls”
The court established the controlling legal standard for resolving conflicts between oral and written sentencing pronouncements.
The defendant was convicted of cocaine trafficking and sentenced to thirty years with a three-year mandatory minimum. The judge orally pronounced a $5…
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 Written Sentencing Order cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Ilona Maxine Holmes, Judge; L.T. Case No. 04- 6537CF10B.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Christine C. Geraghty, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kimberly T. Acuńa, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
On Confession of Error
MAY, J. The defendant appeals his sentence on a revocation of probation. The trial court orally pronounced a sentence of thirty years with a three-year mandatory minimum and a $50,000 fine on count two—trafficking in cocaine between 28 grams and 200 grams—to run concurrent with the other counts. But, the sentencing order and order assessing charges reflect a $500,000 fine with a $25,000 surcharge for count two. In his Initial Brief, the defendant argues the $500,000 fine and surcharge imposed on count two are illegal and do not conform with the court’s oral pronouncement. The State agrees. First, the oral pronouncement of a $50,000 fine controls. See Briggs v. State, 936 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). And second, the State agrees the $500,000 fine and $25,000 surcharge is illegal. We agree.
2
We reverse and remand the case to the trial court for correction of the sentencing order and the Order Assessing Charges/Costs/Fees for count two to reflect a $50,000 fine, plus the commensurate 5% surcharge. Because this is a scrivener’s error, the defendant agrees he need not be present for the correction of the sentencing orders. See Ali v. State, 215 So. 3d 1250, 1251 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). Reversed and remanded. WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.