Crittenden v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Crittenden v. State

624 So. 2d 411, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 9928, 1993 WL 383469

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 30, 1993·No. No. 92-1878·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We find no error in the scoring of victim injury twice on appellant’s sentencing guidelines scoresheet. However, we agree, and the state has conceded, that since the written judgment and sentence is at variance with the court’s oral pronouncement of sentence, this cause must be remanded for correction of the written sentence so as to correspond to the court’s oral pronouncement.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for correction of written sentence.

SMITH, KAHN and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We find no error in the scoring of victim injury twice on appellant’s sentencing guidelines scoresheet. However, we agree, and the state has conceded, that since the written judgment and sentence is at variance with the court’s oral pronouncement of sentence, this cause must be remanded for correction of the written sentence so as to correspond to the court’s oral pronouncement.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for correction of written sentence.

SMITH, KAHN and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

Crittenden v. State, 624 So. 2d 411, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 9928, 1993 WL 383469 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

624 So. 2d 411 (Crittenden v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.