Marshall v. State
| Decision Date | 18 January 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D10–1595.,4D10–1595. |
| Parties | Willie F. MARSHALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and James W. McIntire, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Heidi L. Bettendorf, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
The defendant appeals his conviction and sentence for delivery of cocaine. He argues the court erred in two ways: (1) denying his motion for judgment of acquittal; and (2) entering a sentencing order that did not conform to the court's oral pronouncement. We find no error in the denial of the defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal, but agree that the sentencing order fails to conform to the court's oral pronouncement. We therefore affirm in part and reverse in part.
After the jury returned a guilty verdict on the delivery of cocaine charge, the trial court adjudicated the defendant guilty, and sentenced him as a habitual felony offender. The trial court orally pronounced the sentence as seven years of prison, followed by eight months of probation. The written sentencing order, however, indicated eight years rather than eight months of probation.1
the sentence is illegal. Williams v. State, 957 So.2d 600, 603 (Fla.2007).
Here, the written sentence reflects an eight-year term of probation to follow the term of imprisonment, but the trial transcript reflects an oral pronouncement of seven years imprisonment followed by eight months of probation. The oral sentence is not ambiguous. Nevertheless, the State does not concede error. It contends the trial court either misspoke or the transcript is wrong because, later that day, the trial court sentenced a defendant in another case to a term of imprisonment followed by eight years of probation to be served concurrently.
Notwithstanding the State's alternative theories, Moreland v. State...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blair v. State
...Appellant was not entitled to 300 days since he was booked and release in this case on the very same day. See Marshall v. State , 78 So. 3d 72, 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (finding a discrepancy in the oral pronouncement and written sentence where the oral pronouncement granted eight months’ pro......
-
Blair v. State
... ... credit for the time appellant served in the violation of ... probation arrest. Appellant was not entitled to 300 days ... since he was booked and release in this case on the very same ... day. See Marshall v. State, 78 So.3d 72, 73 (Fla ... 4th DCA 2012) (finding a discrepancy in the oral ... pronouncement and written sentence where the oral ... pronouncement granted eight months' probation and the ... written sentence reflected eight years); see also Morris ... v ... ...
- Stubbs v. Surgi-Staff, Inc.
-
Johnson v. State
...reflect that counts 1 and 3 are to be served concurrently with each other and any active sentence being served. See Marshall v. State , 78 So.3d 72, 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (" ‘[A] court's oral pronouncement of a sentence controls over the written sentencing document. When the written docume......
-
Judgment and sentence
...(here, whether the court intended to impose 8 years of probation rather than 8 months), the oral sentence controls. Marshall v. State, 78 So. 3d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) The court errs in refusing to consider a youthful offender sentence because the defendant refused a plea bargain. The decis......