Jivanjee v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Jivanjee v. State

724 So. 2d 108, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 13454, 1998 WL 765026

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 21, 1998

DocketNos. 96-3419

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 724 So. 2d 108 (Jivanjee 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

Jivanjee v. State, 724 So. 2d 108, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 13454, 1998 WL 765026 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his conviction and sentence. We affirm the conviction, however we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. Defendant argues that the State’s questioning opened the door to his testimony as to the maximum penalty he was facing, and that the trial court erred in refusing to permit his testimony in this regard. The record clearly reflects that no testimony was elicited which created a misleading impression with the jury. See Bozeman v. State, 698 So.2d 629, 630-31 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Thus there was no error as to this issue. Upon the State’s confession of error and our independent review of the record, we agree, however, that the trial court erred in sentencing defendant to 50 years imprisonment. At his sentencing hearing, the court [109]*109sentenced defendant to a 30-year term of imprisonment, with a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence. The written sentencing order later rendered, however provided for a 50-year term of imprisonment, with the 15-year mandatory minimum sentence. A written sentencing order must conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence. See Tannehill v. State, 712 So.2d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Denson v. State, 711 So.2d 1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Murguia v. State, 711 So.2d 185 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Alvarez v. State, 698 So.2d 1377 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Ramos v. State, 682 So.2d 711 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).

Accordingly, defendant’s conviction is affirmed, defendant’s sentence is vacated and the case remanded with directions to correct the written sentencing order to reflect a sentence of 30 years imprisonment with a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his conviction and sentence. We affirm the conviction, however we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. Defendant argues that the State’s questioning opened the door to his testimony as to the maximum penalty he was facing, and that the trial court erred in refusing to permit his testimony in this regard. The record clearly reflects that no testimony was elicited which created a misleading impression with the jury. See Bozeman v. State, 698 So.2d 629, 630-31 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Thus there was no error as to this issue. Upon the State’s confession of error and our independent review of the record, we agree, however, that the trial court erred in sentencing defendant to 50 years imprisonment. At his sentencing hearing, the court [109]*109sentenced defendant to a 30-year term of imprisonment, with a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence. The written sentencing order later rendered, however provided for a 50-year term of imprisonment, with the 15-year mandatory minimum sentence. A written sentencing order must conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence. See Tannehill v. State, 712 So.2d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Denson v. State, 711 So.2d 1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Murguia v. State, 711 So.2d 185 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Alvarez v. State, 698 So.2d 1377 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Ramos v. State, 682 So.2d 711 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).

Accordingly, defendant’s conviction is affirmed, defendant’s sentence is vacated and the case remanded with directions to correct the written sentencing order to reflect a sentence of 30 years imprisonment with a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

724 So. 2d 108, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 13454, 1998 WL 765026, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jivanjee-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack