Krug v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Krug v. State

706 So. 2d 945, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2137, 1998 WL 95319

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 6, 1998

DocketNo. 96-02026

StatusPublished

This text of 706 So. 2d 945 (Krug 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

Krug v. State, 706 So. 2d 945, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2137, 1998 WL 95319 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In his appeal filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and In re Appellate Court Response to Anders Briefs, 581 So.2d 149 (Fla.1991), appellant challenges the revocation of his probation and his oral sentence to three concurrent terms of forty-one months imprisonment. We find error in the written orders as they pertain to appellant’s sentence, but affirm the trial court in all other aspects.

At the sentencing hearing, the appellant was orally sentenced to forty-one months imprisonment for three concurrent terms based upon appellant’s guilty plea to violation of his probation. However, the written orders indicate a sentence of forty-two months imprisonment on each of his three concurrent counts. When an oral pronouncement of sentence is inconsistent with the written order, the oral pronouncement must prevail. See Walker v. State, 593 So.2d 301 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); see also Bogan v. State, 462 So.2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).

We, therefore, affirm as to the revocation of appellant’s probation but reverse and remand for resentencing so that the written orders may be made consistent with the oral pronouncement.

Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded for resentencing.

FRANK, A.C.J., BLUE, J., and DEMERS, DAVID A., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In his appeal filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and In re Appellate Court Response to Anders Briefs, 581 So.2d 149 (Fla.1991), appellant challenges the revocation of his probation and his oral sentence to three concurrent terms of forty-one months imprisonment. We find error in the written orders as they pertain to appellant’s sentence, but affirm the trial court in all other aspects.

At the sentencing hearing, the appellant was orally sentenced to forty-one months imprisonment for three concurrent terms based upon appellant’s guilty plea to violation of his probation. However, the written orders indicate a sentence of forty-two months imprisonment on each of his three concurrent counts. When an oral pronouncement of sentence is inconsistent with the written order, the oral pronouncement must prevail. See Walker v. State, 593 So.2d 301 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); see also Bogan v. State, 462 So.2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).

We, therefore, affirm as to the revocation of appellant’s probation but reverse and remand for resentencing so that the written orders may be made consistent with the oral pronouncement.

Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded for resentencing.

FRANK, A.C.J., BLUE, J., and DEMERS, DAVID A., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

706 So. 2d 945, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2137, 1998 WL 95319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krug-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack