Darby v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Darby v. State

639 So. 2d 208, 1994 WL 380285

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 22, 1994

DocketNos. 93-2105, 93-2138

StatusPublished

This text of 639 So. 2d 208 (Darby 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

Darby v. State, 639 So. 2d 208, 1994 WL 380285 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Eddie Darby appeals his judgments and sentences which were entered by the trial court after Darby pled nolo contendere to the charges of violating his probation and committing the new substantive offense of grand theft. We affirm the judgment and sentence entered on the grand theft charge, affirm the judgment entered on the violation of probation charge, but vacate the sentence entered on the violation of probation charge.

At the sentencing hearing, the trial court orally pronounced a three-year sentence in the Department of Corrections for the violation of probation charge and a consecutive three-year sentence in the Department of Corrections followed by two years of supervised probation for the grand theft charge; however, the written sentencing order reflects that a 3/&-year sentence was imposed for the probation violation charge. Because a discrepancy exists between the trial court’s oral pronouncement and the written sentencing order regarding the probation violation charge, and because the state has not conceded error, this matter must be remanded to the trial court for clarification. See White v. State, 597 So.2d 438 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Wilkins v. State, 543 So.2d 800 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 554 So.2d 1170 (Fla.1989).

AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part; REMANDED for clarification.

PETERSON, GRIFFIN and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Eddie Darby appeals his judgments and sentences which were entered by the trial court after Darby pled nolo contendere to the charges of violating his probation and committing the new substantive offense of grand theft. We affirm the judgment and sentence entered on the grand theft charge, affirm the judgment entered on the violation of probation charge, but vacate the sentence entered on the violation of probation charge.

At the sentencing hearing, the trial court orally pronounced a three-year sentence in the Department of Corrections for the violation of probation charge and a consecutive three-year sentence in the Department of Corrections followed by two years of supervised probation for the grand theft charge; however, the written sentencing order reflects that a 3/&-year sentence was imposed for the probation violation charge. Because a discrepancy exists between the trial court’s oral pronouncement and the written sentencing order regarding the probation violation charge, and because the state has not conceded error, this matter must be remanded to the trial court for clarification. See White v. State, 597 So.2d 438 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Wilkins v. State, 543 So.2d 800 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 554 So.2d 1170 (Fla.1989).

AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part; REMANDED for clarification.

PETERSON, GRIFFIN and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

639 So. 2d 208, 1994 WL 380285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/darby-v-state-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack