VIRGINIA WATT, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Appellant's probation was ordered for two years in the written order but announced as three years from the bench. More than two years later, a different judge amended the order to reflect the three-year term and revoked probation, ordering two additional years. The court reversed, holding that the written order controls and cannot be made more stringent by reference to oral pronouncements.
The formal written, signed, and filed probation order cannot be impeached by reference to a transcript of the judge's oral pronouncements, and the substantial terms of probation cannot be made more stringent based on the transcript. The two-year written order governs, and the court's jurisdiction terminated at the end of that two-year period.
[1] A formal written court order, once signed, filed, and recorded, cannot be impeached or made more stringent by reference to a transcript of oral proceedings.
[2] Courts possess the authority to correct clerical errors in their orders and judgments.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 formal order of probation, filed in the cause and directed for recordation in the minutes, cannot be impeached and its substantial terms made more stringent upon the probationer by reference to a transcript of the proceedings.”
Establishes the controlling principle that the written order governs and cannot be changed by oral pronouncements
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA judge signed and filed a written probation order on January 6, 1972, fixing appellant's probationary term at two years. However, the court transcrip…
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 Nunc Pro Tunc Amendment cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, Judge.
Here there is a disparity between the court’s written order of probation, signed and filed by a former judge on January 6, 1972, and the court reporter’s transcript of his notes of the proceedings in court that day. The order fixes appellant’s probationary term at two years. The transcript quotes the judge as announcing that appellant would be placed on probation for three years. The probation officer’s notes corroborate the transcript. Now, more than two but less than three years later, another judge of the same court has undertaken to amend the original probationary order, nunc pro tunc, to specify a three year period. That done, the court revoked appellant’s probation and ordered her placed on probation for two more years.
The formal order of probation, filed in the cause and directed for recordation in the minutes, cannot be impeached and its substantial terms made more stringent upon the probationer by reference to a transcript of the proceedings. The court’s order did not consist of words spoken from the bench, nor of the reporter’s record of those words, but rather of the written, signed, filed and recorded order. Ellis v. State, 100 Fla. 27, 129 So. 106 (1930); Shargaa v. State, 102 So. 2d 809 (Fla.1958); Pickman v. State, 155 So. 2d 646 (Fla.App.3d, 1963), cert. den. 164 So. 2d 805 (Fla.1964); Roy v. State, 207 So. 2d 52 (Fla.App.2d, 1968), cert. dism. 211 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1968); Falagan v. Wainwright, 195 So. 2d 562 (Fla.1967).
Courts are authorized to correct clerical errors in their orders and judgments within or beyond the term. Boggs v. Wainwright, 223 So. 2d 316 (Fla.1969). But there is little reason in this case to conclude that the formal order, rather than the oral announcement or the reporter’s record of it, was in error. If the conflict between the trial court’s apparent announcement and its formal order were otherwise inexplicable, we would yet presume that the trial court was empowered to order and intentionally did order a probationary period shorter than that announced. The lower court’s jurisdiction terminated at the end of appellant’s probation on January 6, 1974. Sec. 948.04, F.S.1973. We reverse the probationary order entered March 14, 1974, and discharge appellant.
Reversed.
BOYER, C. J., and RAWLS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Peyton v. State, 383 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…e hearing respecting probation violations and that the written order superseded any conflicting court minutes. We agree that where there is conflict between a deputy clerk’s minutes and a later order of the court, the order prevails. Watt v. State, 323 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). However, there is no conflict here. The deputy clerk’s minutes clearly reflect two separate rulings by the court. Moreover, the trial court’s written judg.ment and sentence, entered at the time the court imposed the one-year pri…
-
Pelfrey v. State, 409 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…ing, but the recorded judgment sentenced Pelfrey to fifteen (15) years for each armed robbery and life imprisonment for the attempted first degree murder. The lower court order is the recorded judgment and not the hearing transcript. Watt v. State, 323 So. 2d 621 (Fla. [*487] 1st DCA 1975). The Watt court was faced with a similar situation. It concluded that there was no reason to find the. formal order was in error because of a discrepancy between the order and the statements in the transcript. This situati…
-
Watson v. State, 633 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…the court, the order prevails. Peyton v. State, 383 So. 2d 737, 739 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). In this case there is insufficient record evidence to conclude that the court’s written order suspending entry of sentence was a clerical error. Watt v. State, 323 So. 2d 621, 622 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). The trial court indicated that the suspended sentences imposed on counts III and IV were imposed pursuant to a clerical error without the court’s knowledge. Although there was no testimony presented in opposition to refute…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ellis v. State, 100 Fla. 27 (Fla. 1930)
- Boggs v. Honorable Louie L. Wainwright, 223 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 1969)
- Shargaa v. State, 102 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 1958)
- ROY v. State, 207 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- Falagan v. Louie L. Wainwright, 195 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1967)
- Pickman v. State, 155 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- ROY v. State, 211 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1968)
- Pickman v. State, 164 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 1964)