Arline v. State
| Decision Date | 06 August 2014 |
| Docket Number | 4D13–4457.,Nos. 4D13–3692,s. 4D13–3692 |
| Citation | 155 So.3d 1158 |
| Parties | Tabarius ARLINE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Tabarius ARLINE, Appellant
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Nos. 4D13–3692
4D13–4457.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Aug. 6, 2014.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Ian Seldin, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
No appearance filed for appellee.
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
We sua sponte consolidate these two appeals for all purposes, as the pleas and sentences in the two underlying cases were respectively accepted and imposed in a single hearing as part of a negotiated resolution. In both appeals, the defendant's appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and supporting brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
We grant appellate counsel's motion to withdraw in both appeals and affirm the defendant's convictions and sentences. However, our affirmance is without prejudice to the appellant filing any appropriate postconviction motions directed to an unpreserved sentencing error which we have discovered in case no. 12014039CF10A.
The error which we have discovered in case no. 12014039CF10A is that the oral pronouncement of the sentences conflicts with the written sentences, and the written sentences are illegal. The plea agreement called for the circuit court to sentence the defendant as follows:
Count One, a third degree felony battery arising after a prior battery conviction, in violation of section 784.03(2), Florida Statutes (2012)—Five years as a prison releasee reoffender (PRR); and
Count Two, the third degree felony of false imprisonment, in violation of section 787.02(2), Florida Statutes (2012)—Five years and a day as a habitual felony offender (HFO).
The court orally pronounced appellant's sentences consistent with the plea agreement. However, the written sentences showed that the sentence for Count One was five years as a PRR and as a HFO, and that the sentence for Count Two was five years and a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Powell v. State
...“misgivings aris[ing] from uncertainty about the interplay” of Anders, Causey, and rule 3.800(b)(2) ).Recently, in Arline v. State, 155 So.3d 1158, 1159 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), the Fourth District Court of Appeal considered an Anders appeal in which the appellant entered a negotiated plea to t......