Kiselyk v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kiselyk v. State

831 So. 2d 1248, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 18277, 2002 WL 31778047

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 13, 2002

DocketNo. 2D01-2129

StatusPublished

This text of 831 So. 2d 1248 (Kiselyk 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

Kiselyk v. State, 831 So. 2d 1248, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 18277, 2002 WL 31778047 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

GREEN, OLIVER L., Senior Judge.

Stephen Kiselyk challenges his convictions and sentences for various drug offenses. We affirm Kiselyk’s convictions without discussion. However, we reverse Kiselyk’s sentences and remand for entry of a written sentence that comports with the trial court’s oral pronouncement.

Kiselyk pleaded no contest to one count of trafficking in methamphetamine, one count of possession of LSD, one count of possession of hydrocodone, one count of possession of alprazolam, one count of possession of marijuana, and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court orally sentenced Kiselyk to seventy-five months on the trafficking conviction, concurrent thirty-six-month sentences on the possession of LSD, hydrocodone, and alprazolam convictions, and time served on the possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia convictions. However, the written sentence imposed a seventy-five-month sentence not only on the trafficking conviction, but also on the convictions for possession of LSD, hydrocodone, and alprazolam. Because the oral pronouncement of sentence controls over the written judgment, see Allen v. State, 787 So.2d 884, 885 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), we reverse Kiselyk’s sentences and remand to the trial court with instructions to enter a written sentence that comports with its oral pronouncement.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

SILBERMAN and KELLY, JJ„ concur.

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

GREEN, OLIVER L., Senior Judge.

Stephen Kiselyk challenges his convictions and sentences for various drug offenses. We affirm Kiselyk’s convictions without discussion. However, we reverse Kiselyk’s sentences and remand for entry of a written sentence that comports with the trial court’s oral pronouncement.

Kiselyk pleaded no contest to one count of trafficking in methamphetamine, one count of possession of LSD, one count of possession of hydrocodone, one count of possession of alprazolam, one count of possession of marijuana, and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court orally sentenced Kiselyk to seventy-five months on the trafficking conviction, concurrent thirty-six-month sentences on the possession of LSD, hydrocodone, and alprazolam convictions, and time served on the possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia convictions. However, the written sentence imposed a seventy-five-month sentence not only on the trafficking conviction, but also on the convictions for possession of LSD, hydrocodone, and alprazolam. Because the oral pronouncement of sentence controls over the written judgment, see Allen v. State, 787 So.2d 884, 885 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), we reverse Kiselyk’s sentences and remand to the trial court with instructions to enter a written sentence that comports with its oral pronouncement.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

SILBERMAN and KELLY, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

831 So. 2d 1248, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 18277, 2002 WL 31778047, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kiselyk-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack