MARK BUCHER
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 defendant must preserve a discrepancy between the trial court's oral pronouncement and written revocation order by contemporaneous objection or by filing a motion to correct sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b).
[1] A discrepancy between a trial court's oral pronouncement of a sentence and its written order is not fundamental error correctable on direct appeal absent preservation thr…
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“defendant was required to preserve discrepancy between oral pronouncement and written order 'either by contemporaneous objection to the written revocation order, or by filing a motion to correct sentence pursuant to [rule] 3.800(b)'”
Court citing Smith v. State regarding preservation requirements for discrepancies between oral and written orders.
Mark Bucher appealed the revocation of his probation and resulting sentence for aggravated battery. Bucher contended that the written order rendered b…
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 Preservation Of Error cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Mark Bucher, challenges the revocation of his probation and resulting sentence for the underlying crime of aggravated battery. On appeal, Bucher contends the written order rendered below failed to conform with the oral pronouncement of the trial court. Because this ground has been raised before us in the first instance, we affirm without prejudice to the filing of a motion to correct sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b). See Smith v. State, 306 So. 3d 1147, 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (holding defendant was required to preserve discrepancy between oral pronouncement and written order “either by contemporaneous objection to the written revocation order, or by filing a motion to correct sentence pursuant to [rule] 3.800(b)”); see also Thomas v. State, 763 So. 2d 316, 316 (Fla. 2000) (approving district court decision characterizing conflict between oral pronouncement and written order “as a ‘scrivener’s error’ that did not constitute fundamental error correctable on direct appeal absent preservation” and could be corrected by filing rule 3.800(b) motion); Parris v. State, 974 So. 2d 415, 415–16 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (concluding appellant failed to preserve issue regarding conflict between trial court’s oral pronouncement and written order, as issue was not first presented to trial court by contemporaneous objection or rule 3.800(b) motion); Jelks v. State, 770 So. 2d 183, 185 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (“[T]o the extent that this type of 2 error can be classified as a scrivener’s error, it is now clear that a defendant or the State can seek to correct the error by filing a motion pursuant to [rule] 3.800(b).”).
Affirmed.
3
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bucher v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
-
Frazier v. State, 388 So. 3d 246 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)…that the three remaining alleged violations (lewd or lascivious exhibition in a correctional facility, failure to pay costs of supervision, and failure to pay drug testing fees) were not proven. The oral pronouncement controls. See Smith v. State, 306 So. 3d 1147 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020); Shacker v. State, 106 So. 3d 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); Smith v. State, 100 So. 3d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). However, Frazier failed to preserve this issue for appeal either by contemporaneous objection to the written revocation orde…
-
Bucher v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…ncement of the trial court. Because this ground has been raised before us in the first instance, we affirm without prejudice to the filing of a motion to correct sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b). See Smith v. State, 306 So. 3d 1147, 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (holding defendant was required to preserve discrepancy between oral pronouncement and written order “either by contemporaneous objection to the written revocation order, or by filing a motion to correct sentence pursuant to…
Authorities Cited
- Thomas v. State, 763 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 2000)
- Antoine Jelks v. State, 770 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Parris v. State, 974 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- Bucher v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)