Mathis v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mathis v. State

509 So. 2d 1309, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1743, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9422

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 15, 1987

DocketNo. 85-2772

StatusPublished

This text of 509 So. 2d 1309 (Mathis 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

Mathis v. State, 509 So. 2d 1309, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1743, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9422 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

DANAHY, Chief Judge.

The appellant challenges his convictions and sentences for sale of a controlled substance and possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell. We find no merit to the appellant’s challenge insofar as his convictions are concerned.

The appellant’s sentences, however, must be reversed. At the sentencing hearing, the trial judge stated the following:

I am going to ... give you two concurrent five-year probations, consecutive to any sentences that you receive right now, which means that the sentences that you are already under, you’ll go do those sentences. You’ll be released. And you’ll go on the five-years probation on two felonies....

The trial judge then entered written sentences in accordance with his oral pronouncement. Later, however, the trial judge apparently concluded that the written sentences did not conform to his oral pronouncement and he entered “corrected” sentences imposing concurrent terms of five years imprisonment. A written sentence must not vary from the trial judge’s oral pronouncement. Swanson v. State, 399 So.2d 469 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Accordingly, we reverse the sentences imposed in this case and remand for resentencing consistent with the trial judge’s oral pronouncement at the sentencing hearing.

Reversed and remanded for resentenc-ing.

SCHOONOVER and FRANK, JJ., concur.

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

DANAHY, Chief Judge.

The appellant challenges his convictions and sentences for sale of a controlled substance and possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell. We find no merit to the appellant’s challenge insofar as his convictions are concerned.

The appellant’s sentences, however, must be reversed. At the sentencing hearing, the trial judge stated the following:

I am going to ... give you two concurrent five-year probations, consecutive to any sentences that you receive right now, which means that the sentences that you are already under, you’ll go do those sentences. You’ll be released. And you’ll go on the five-years probation on two felonies....

The trial judge then entered written sentences in accordance with his oral pronouncement. Later, however, the trial judge apparently concluded that the written sentences did not conform to his oral pronouncement and he entered “corrected” sentences imposing concurrent terms of five years imprisonment. A written sentence must not vary from the trial judge’s oral pronouncement. Swanson v. State, 399 So.2d 469 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Accordingly, we reverse the sentences imposed in this case and remand for resentencing consistent with the trial judge’s oral pronouncement at the sentencing hearing.

Reversed and remanded for resentenc-ing.

SCHOONOVER and FRANK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

509 So. 2d 1309, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1743, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9422, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mathis-v-state-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack