Highberger v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Highberger v. State

863 So. 2d 1256, 2004 WL 19499

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 2, 2004

Docket5D02-3765

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 863 So. 2d 1256 (Highberger 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

Highberger v. State, 863 So. 2d 1256, 2004 WL 19499 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

863 So.2d 1256 (2004)

Joshalynne D. HIGHBERGER, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D02-3765.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

January 2, 2004.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Meghan Ann Collins, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allison Leigh Morris, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

ORFINGER, J.

In this Anders^[1] appeal, the State was ordered to file an answer brief, addressing the conflict between the written and oral sentence regarding count three of the information. The State concedes that the trial court orally imposed a fifteen-year sentence for count three, and stated "[t]here is no minimum mandatory;" however, *1257 the written sentence imposes a ten-year minimum mandatory term. Highberger preserved the error by filing a timely motion pursuant to Florida Rule Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), but the trial court failed to rule on the motion within the required time. As a result, the motion was deemed denied. Kimbrough v. State, 766 So.2d 1255 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).

Although the State argues that it is unclear if the trial court intended to impose a minimum mandatory term for count three, we conclude that the trial court's oral pronouncement that "there is no minimum mandatory" as to count three is clear and unambiguous. Accordingly, we reverse the sentence imposed for count three and remand this matter to the trial court with instructions that the written sentence be modified to conform with the oral pronouncement. We affirm the convictions and sentences regarding counts one, two, four and five. Highberger does not need to be present at resentencing.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

PLEUS and PALMER, JJ., concur.

NOTES

[1] Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

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

863 So.2d 1256 (2004)

Joshalynne D. HIGHBERGER, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D02-3765.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

January 2, 2004.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Meghan Ann Collins, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allison Leigh Morris, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

ORFINGER, J.

In this Anders^[1] appeal, the State was ordered to file an answer brief, addressing the conflict between the written and oral sentence regarding count three of the information. The State concedes that the trial court orally imposed a fifteen-year sentence for count three, and stated "[t]here is no minimum mandatory;" however, *1257 the written sentence imposes a ten-year minimum mandatory term. Highberger preserved the error by filing a timely motion pursuant to Florida Rule Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), but the trial court failed to rule on the motion within the required time. As a result, the motion was deemed denied. Kimbrough v. State, 766 So.2d 1255 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).

Although the State argues that it is unclear if the trial court intended to impose a minimum mandatory term for count three, we conclude that the trial court's oral pronouncement that "there is no minimum mandatory" as to count three is clear and unambiguous. Accordingly, we reverse the sentence imposed for count three and remand this matter to the trial court with instructions that the written sentence be modified to conform with the oral pronouncement. We affirm the convictions and sentences regarding counts one, two, four and five. Highberger does not need to be present at resentencing.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

PLEUS and PALMER, JJ., concur.

NOTES

[1] Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

863 So. 2d 1256, 2004 WL 19499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/highberger-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Joshalynne D. HIGHBERGER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

NOTES

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Joshalynne D. HIGHBERGER, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.