Driver v. State, 97-04607
| Decision Date | 15 April 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-04607,97-04607 |
| Citation | 710 So.2d 652 |
| Parties | 23 Fla. L. Weekly D989 Johnny T. DRIVER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Johnny T. Driver, for the second time, appeals the trial court's order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. Previously, this court reversed the trial court's order denying relief and remanded for further proceedings because the record attached to the trial court's order failed to refute the allegations in Driver's motion. See Driver v. State, 695 So.2d 1318 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Once again, we reverse and remand because the trial court's attachments fail to refute Driver's claim that his sentence is illegal.
Driver was convicted of two counts of attempted sexual battery on August 26, 1987. The written judgment and sentence indicates Driver was sentenced to twenty-five years' incarceration on each count, to be served concurrently, as a habitual felony offender. Driver claims that the trial court orally sentenced him to fifteen years' imprisonment on count one with a concurrent ten years' imprisonment on count two. He further claims that the trial court failed to orally pronounce him to be a habitual felony offender. When a written order does not conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement, the oral pronouncement controls. See Bogan v. State, 462 So.2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
In its initial order denying Driver's motion, the trial court stated that Driver "was adjudged an habitual offender, and was sentenced under Florida Statutes Section 775.084(4)(a), which allows the penalty for a second-degree felony to be enhanced to a term of up to 30 years." This court reversed the trial court's order and remanded for further proceedings, explaining that the attachments to the order did not refute Driver's allegations.
On remand, the trial court again denied Driver's motion based on a finding that:
[T]he record shows the Court orally pronounced a sentence of fifteen years on count one and a sentence of ten years on count two, and then further found justification for departure and orally pronounced that counts one and two will be a sentence of twenty- five years to run concurrent. Thus, the Court's final and oral pronouncement of sentence does not differ from the written sentence.
The trial court neglected to address Driver's allegation that he was not orally sentenced as a habitual...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kelley v. Rice
...Constitutions. Beyond that, the written judgment conflicts with the judge's oral pronouncement at the hearing. See Driver v. State, 710 So.2d 652 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). According to the oral pronouncement, the judge found Ms. Kelley guilty of some unspecified variety of contempt. This, in turn......
-
State v. Thompson
...that the actual oral imposition of sanctions should prevail over any subsequent written order to the contrary"); Driver v. State, 710 So.2d 652, 653 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (stating that "[w]hen a written order does not conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement, the oral pronouncement 2. W......
-
Ashley v. State
...v. Jones, 753 So.2d 1276, 1277 (Fla.2000); State v. Williams, 712 So.2d 762 (Fla. 1998); Justice, 674 So.2d at 126; Driver v. State, 710 So.2d 652, 653 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Generally, the oral pronouncement prevails unless the oral pronouncement is in error due to a clerical error such as th......
-
Ashley v. State
...So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 2000); State v. Williams, 712 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 1998); Justice v. State, 674 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 1996); Driver v. State, 710 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Thus, based on the prior precedent from this Court, I would approve the Fourth District's opinion in Evans v. State, 675 ......