JAMES RUSSELL BARNES, 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.
The trial court erred by entering a written sentence imposing consecutive PRR and HVFO sentences when it orally pronounced them concurrent, and the written sentence must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement.
A written sentence must conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement of sentence, and when a discrepancy exists, the written sentence must be corrected to match the oral pronouncement.
[1] When a discrepancy exists between a trial court's written sentence and its oral pronouncement of sentence, the written sentence must be corrected to conform to the oral p…
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 of sentence controls over the written document.”
Ashley v. State, establishing the rule that oral pronouncements take precedence over written sentencing documents.
James Russell Barnes was convicted of attempted carjacking and resentenced after the trial court granted his motion to correct illegal sentence. At th…
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 Habitual Violent Felony Offender (Hvfo) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
James Russell Barnes appeals his resentencing on his conviction for attempted carjacking after the trial court granted his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). On appeal, Barnes argues that his new written sentence does not conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence at the resentencing hearing. The State concedes the error. The written sentence provides that Barnes’ prison releasee reoffender (PRR) sentence run consecutively to his habitual violent felony offender (HVFO) minimum mandatory sentence even though the trial court orally pronounced that his PRR and HVFO sentences were to run concurrently. The trial court erred in entering a written sentence that did not conform to the court’s oral pronouncement. See Ashley v. State, 850 So. 2d 1265, 1268 (Fla.2003) (“[A] court’s oral pronouncement of sentence controls over the written document.”); Guerra v. State, 927 So. 2d 248, 249 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (“If a discrepancy exists between the written sentence and the oral pronouncement, the written sentence must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement.”). Barnes properly preserved this issue by filing a motion to correct sentencing error pursuant to rule 3.800(b). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for correction of Barnes’ written sentence.
Reversed and remanded.
SILBERMAN, CANADY, and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rivera v. State, 34 So. 3d 207 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…sts to the Statewide Prosecutor and $4,008 investigative costs to the Lee County Sheriffs Office[.] The rule 3.800(b)(2) motion preserved the issue of the written sentences conflicting with the trial court’s oral pronouncement. See Barnes v. State, 977 So. 2d 801, 802 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). The written sentences must conform to the oral pronouncement. See id. As to the first three issues, we direct the trial court to correct the sentencing documents to reflect that (1) Rivera’s sentences on counts 2 and 3 are n…
-
Lamont Asberry v. State, 4 So. 3d 1271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…but reverse with directions to the trial court to sentence the Defendant as a prison releasee reoffender in Count I and a habitual felony offender in Count II, in conformance with the court’s oral pronouncement at resentencing. See Barnes v. State, 977 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). The state concedes error. HAWKES, C.J., PADOVANO, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.…
-
George v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2024)…motion as filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The court correctly recognized that "[a]n orally pronounced sentence is controlling when it differs from the subsequently written sentencing order." See Barnes v. State, 977 So. 2d 801, 802 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). However, the court dismissed Ms. George's motion1 because she failed to support her claim with any record evidence, citing Gomez v. State, 137 So. 3d 1037, 1038 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) ("[A] defendant [may not] claim a senten…
Authorities Cited
- Columbus Rickey Ashley v. State, 850 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 2003)
- Guerra v. State, 927 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)