Catalan v. State

911 So. 2d 203, 2005 WL 2293472
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedSeptember 21, 2005
Docket3D05-978
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 911 So. 2d 203 (Catalan 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
Catalan v. State, 911 So. 2d 203, 2005 WL 2293472 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

911 So.2d 203 (2005)

Ramon Severo CATALAN, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D05-978.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

September 21, 2005.

*204 Ramon Severo Catalan, in proper person.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Ishir Mehta, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before COPE, C.J., and SHEPHERD, J., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

SHEPHERD, J.

Appellant, Ramon Severo Catalan, appeals an order of the trial court denying a motion to correct illegal sentence brought by him pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm in part and reverse in part.

On August 28, 2001, Catalan pled guilty to grand theft in Case No. 01-17905 and was sentenced to nine months in the Miami-Dade County Jail, followed by two years probation. On February 22, 2002, while on probation, he was apprehended on a second grand theft charge. On May 31, 2002, the trial court revoked his probation, and sentenced him to five years of incarceration as a habitual felony offender. He was also adjudicated guilty on the second charge and sentenced to a five-year concurrent sentence.

Upon review of the plea colloquy of the revocation proceeding in Case No. 01-17905, it does not appear anywhere that Catalan was adjudicated a habitual felony offender. Where there is a difference between the court's oral pronouncement and a written order, the oral pronouncement controls. Reyes v. State, 888 So.2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). Accordingly, we direct that Catalan's sentence in Case No. 01-17905 be corrected to delete his classification as a habitual felony offender in that case. The defendant need not be present. We affirm the judgment of the trial court in all other respects.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and case remanded with directions.

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

Related

Scott v. State
109 So. 3d 866 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2013)
Williams v. State
35 So. 3d 165 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)
Thompson v. State
987 So. 2d 727 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)
De La Rosa v. State
979 So. 2d 1089 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)
Rincon v. State
974 So. 2d 1153 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)
Francois v. State
923 So. 2d 1219 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
911 So. 2d 203, 2005 WL 2293472, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/catalan-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.