Marcel D. Thomas v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Marcel D. Thomas v. State of Florida

183 So. 3d 479, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 713, 2016 WL 231961

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 20, 2016

Docket4D14-1130

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 183 So. 3d 479 (Marcel D. Thomas v. State of Florida) 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

Marcel D. Thomas v. State of Florida, 183 So. 3d 479, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 713, 2016 WL 231961 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges his sentence, arguing that the trial court’s. written order, finding six violations of probation, does not match the court’s oral pronouncement, which found only that Appellant “violated [probation] by .committing the criminal of *480 fense of robbery with a firearm.” 1 “Where a trial court’s written sentencing order conflicts with the oral pronouncement, the oral pronouncement controls.” Santiago v. State, 133 So.3d 1159, 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). The State concedes that the written order does not match the oral pronouncement. As the ■written order finds violations of probation not included in the oral pronouncement, the written order must be corrected.

We affirm the imposition of costs, as these had been imposed in the original sentencing proceeding. The court did not have to orally impose them again at the sentencing for the violation of probation.

Affirmed and remanded for correction in conformance with the oral pronouncement.

WARNER, MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

1

. As Appellant’s other arguments lack merit, we decline to address them.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges his sentence, arguing that the trial court’s. written order, finding six violations of probation, does not match the court’s oral pronouncement, which found only that Appellant “violated [probation] by .committing the criminal of *480 fense of robbery with a firearm.” 1 “Where a trial court’s written sentencing order conflicts with the oral pronouncement, the oral pronouncement controls.” Santiago v. State, 133 So.3d 1159, 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). The State concedes that the written order does not match the oral pronouncement. As the ■written order finds violations of probation not included in the oral pronouncement, the written order must be corrected.

We affirm the imposition of costs, as these had been imposed in the original sentencing proceeding. The court did not have to orally impose them again at the sentencing for the violation of probation.

Affirmed and remanded for correction in conformance with the oral pronouncement.

WARNER, MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

1

. As Appellant’s other arguments lack merit, we decline to address them.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 So. 3d 479, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 713, 2016 WL 231961, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marcel-d-thomas-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack