Lollis v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lollis v. State

169 So. 3d 277, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 10495, 2015 WL 4156781

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 10, 2015

Docket2D14-834

StatusPublished

This text of 169 So. 3d 277 (Lollis 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

Lollis v. State, 169 So. 3d 277, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 10495, 2015 WL 4156781 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

VILLANTI, Chief Judge.

Letitia Nanette Lollis appeals her convictions for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, tampering with a witness, petit theft, uttering a forged instrument, and fraudulent use of personal information. We affirm her convictions without further discussion. However, Lollis argues and the State properly concedes that we must reverse her sentences for the uttering and fraudulent use charges because the trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence differs from the written sentencing documents. Specifically, the written sentencing documents do not include the qualifying conditions orally announced by the court that Lollis’s prison sentences are to be suspended after three years in favor of two years’ probation on the uttering and fraudulent use charges. A trial court’s written sentence must conform to its oral pronouncement; when the two differ, that constitutes reversible error. See Rivera v. State, 34 So.3d 207, 208 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). Accordingly, we reverse this portion of Lollis’s sentence and remand for the trial court to enter an amended sentence consistent with its oral pronouncement.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

KELLY and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.

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

VILLANTI, Chief Judge.

Letitia Nanette Lollis appeals her convictions for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, tampering with a witness, petit theft, uttering a forged instrument, and fraudulent use of personal information. We affirm her convictions without further discussion. However, Lollis argues and the State properly concedes that we must reverse her sentences for the uttering and fraudulent use charges because the trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence differs from the written sentencing documents. Specifically, the written sentencing documents do not include the qualifying conditions orally announced by the court that Lollis’s prison sentences are to be suspended after three years in favor of two years’ probation on the uttering and fraudulent use charges. A trial court’s written sentence must conform to its oral pronouncement; when the two differ, that constitutes reversible error. See Rivera v. State, 34 So.3d 207, 208 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). Accordingly, we reverse this portion of Lollis’s sentence and remand for the trial court to enter an amended sentence consistent with its oral pronouncement.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

KELLY and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 So. 3d 277, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 10495, 2015 WL 4156781, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lollis-v-state-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack