Brime v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Brime v. State

649 So. 2d 364, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 1296, 1995 WL 59598

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 15, 1995

DocketNo. 94-2433

StatusPublished

This text of 649 So. 2d 364 (Brime v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brime v. State, 649 So. 2d 364, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 1296, 1995 WL 59598 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon the State’s proper confession of error, we remand this case to the trial court for entry of a corrected sentencing order.

The record establishes that the trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence con[365]*365formed to the plea agreement entered into between the State and the defendant, namely that the sentences in Dade County case numbers 91-38843B and 92-16974B, which are to be served concurrently, are also to be served concurrently with Broward County ease number 93-2794CFA. However, the written sentencing order deviates from the court’s oral pronouncement and the plea agreement. Accordingly, the written sentence must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement of the court. Vazquez v. State, 635 So.2d 1088 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Brown v. State, 423 So.2d 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Should the trial court decline to enter such an order, defendant must be allowed the opportunity to withdraw his plea. See Buffa v. State, 641 So.2d 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (on remand for resentencing, should court decline to enter sentence in accordance with plea agreement, court must afford defendant opportunity to withdraw plea).

Remanded with instructions.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon the State’s proper confession of error, we remand this case to the trial court for entry of a corrected sentencing order.

The record establishes that the trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence con[365]*365formed to the plea agreement entered into between the State and the defendant, namely that the sentences in Dade County case numbers 91-38843B and 92-16974B, which are to be served concurrently, are also to be served concurrently with Broward County ease number 93-2794CFA. However, the written sentencing order deviates from the court’s oral pronouncement and the plea agreement. Accordingly, the written sentence must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement of the court. Vazquez v. State, 635 So.2d 1088 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Brown v. State, 423 So.2d 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Should the trial court decline to enter such an order, defendant must be allowed the opportunity to withdraw his plea. See Buffa v. State, 641 So.2d 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (on remand for resentencing, should court decline to enter sentence in accordance with plea agreement, court must afford defendant opportunity to withdraw plea).

Remanded with instructions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

649 So. 2d 364, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 1296, 1995 WL 59598, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brime-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack