SAMUEL WRIGHT
v.
THE 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 sentencing order that does not reflect the terms of an accepted plea agreement regarding concurrent versus consecutive sentencing constitutes correctable sentencing error under Rule 3.800.
[1] A sentencing order that fails to incorporate the terms of a plea agreement regarding concurrent sentencing, even when the trial court orally accepted those terms, constit…
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 intelligenceSamuel Wright entered into a plea agreement requiring that sentences in his various cases be served concurrently. The trial court orally announced acc…
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 Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Samuel Wright appeals the trial court’s denial of his Rule 3.800 motion to correct sentencing error. Mr. Wright contends that the written sentence does not comport with his plea agreement, nor the trial court’s oral announcement made during the sentencing hearing that it accepted the agreement, in that it does not order that the sentences in Mr. Wright’s various cases be served concurrently. The State has confessed error, and our independent review of the record indicates that Mr. Wright is entitled to relief. We therefore reverse the order on appeal and remand for the trial court to enter a sentencing order that reflects the mutual agreement of the parties. Reversed and remanded.
2