Jessie v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Jessie v. State

692 So. 2d 317, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4874, 1997 WL 216597

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 2, 1997

DocketNo. 96-3220

StatusPublished

This text of 692 So. 2d 317 (Jessie 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

Jessie v. State, 692 So. 2d 317, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4874, 1997 WL 216597 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal conducted pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), our review of the record has disclosed no reversible error. However, a discrepancy exists between the oral pronouncement and two of the written sentences. Thus, we affirm but remand for the trial court to resolve the discrepancy.

At sentencing, the trial court orally pronounced concurrent sentences of 14j6 years on count I and 5 years each for counts II, III and IV. On the other hand, the written sentences reflect that appellant received 14)4 years on counts I, II and III, and 5 years on count IV. It is impossible to determine from the record which disposition was actually intended, or whether, in fact, the written sentences are necessarily erroneous. Accordingly, under these circumstances we remand for the trial court to resolve the discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and the written sentences. See, e.g., Wilkins v. [318]*318State, 543 So.2d 800 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 554 So.2d 1170 (Fla.1989).

AFFIRMED and REMANDED.

COBB, GRIFFIN and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal conducted pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), our review of the record has disclosed no reversible error. However, a discrepancy exists between the oral pronouncement and two of the written sentences. Thus, we affirm but remand for the trial court to resolve the discrepancy.

At sentencing, the trial court orally pronounced concurrent sentences of 14j6 years on count I and 5 years each for counts II, III and IV. On the other hand, the written sentences reflect that appellant received 14)4 years on counts I, II and III, and 5 years on count IV. It is impossible to determine from the record which disposition was actually intended, or whether, in fact, the written sentences are necessarily erroneous. Accordingly, under these circumstances we remand for the trial court to resolve the discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and the written sentences. See, e.g., Wilkins v. [318]*318State, 543 So.2d 800 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 554 So.2d 1170 (Fla.1989).

AFFIRMED and REMANDED.

COBB, GRIFFIN and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

692 So. 2d 317, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4874, 1997 WL 216597, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jessie-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack