Lundy v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lundy v. State

740 So. 2d 54, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 9600, 1999 WL 538086

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 4, 1999

DocketNo. 98-00866

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 740 So. 2d 54 (Lundy 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

Lundy v. State, 740 So. 2d 54, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 9600, 1999 WL 538086 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.

Appellant challenges his judgment and sentence for possession of cocaine and possession of marijuana. Of the four issues raised on appeal, we find merit only in the last issue that the written replevin order did not conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement. We therefore affirm Appellant’s conviction and sentence without discussion, but remand for conformance of the written order to the oral pronouncement.

Appellant filed a pro se motion for replevin requesting the return of any money he possessed at the time of his arrest. The trial court granted the motion and directed defense counsel to prepare an order directing that the funds be returned. The written order that was filed, however, denied Appellant’s request. Written orders must conform to the oral pronouncements made in open court. See Walker v. State, 593 So.2d 301 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Beal v. State, 478 So.2d 401 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Accordingly, we remand with instructions that the trial court conform the written order to its oral pronouncements.

THREADGILL, J., and LANGFORD, J. DAVID, Associate Judge, Concur.

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

CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.

Appellant challenges his judgment and sentence for possession of cocaine and possession of marijuana. Of the four issues raised on appeal, we find merit only in the last issue that the written replevin order did not conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement. We therefore affirm Appellant’s conviction and sentence without discussion, but remand for conformance of the written order to the oral pronouncement.

Appellant filed a pro se motion for replevin requesting the return of any money he possessed at the time of his arrest. The trial court granted the motion and directed defense counsel to prepare an order directing that the funds be returned. The written order that was filed, however, denied Appellant’s request. Written orders must conform to the oral pronouncements made in open court. See Walker v. State, 593 So.2d 301 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Beal v. State, 478 So.2d 401 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Accordingly, we remand with instructions that the trial court conform the written order to its oral pronouncements.

THREADGILL, J., and LANGFORD, J. DAVID, Associate Judge, Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

740 So. 2d 54, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 9600, 1999 WL 538086, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lundy-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack