Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/A.S. v. State

A.S. v. State

714 So. 2d 1038, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 4203
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 17, 1998·No. No. 96-03763·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

FRANK, Acting Chief Judge.

We affirm A.S.’s adjudication of delinquen: cy. We remand this ease, however, for correction of the sentence. Although the trial court orally pronounced that A.S.’s sentences for Counts I and II would be served concurrently, the written commitment order provides that the sentences are to run consecutively. ‘When there is a difference between a court’s oral pronouncement and a written [1039] order, the oral pronouncement controls.” D.F. v. State, 650 So.2d 1097, 1098 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Accordingly, we remand for correction of the written order to conform to the oral pronouncement that the sentences are to run concurrently.

Remanded with instructions.

ALTENBERND and FULMER, JJ„ concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

A.S. v. State, 714 So. 2d 1038, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 4203 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

714 So. 2d 1038 (A.S. v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Plourde v. State
975 So. 2d 558 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)
R.S.M. v. State
910 So. 2d 361 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Van Royal v. State
760 So. 2d 236 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
Silva v. State
732 So. 2d 457 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
Ricks v. State
725 So. 2d 1205 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
As v. State
714 So. 2d 1038 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)