R.L.F. v. State
This text of 228 So. 3d 633 (R.L.F. 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.
Opinion
In this Anders1 appeal, R.L.F. appeals from a disposition order finding that he committed delinquent acts, withholding adjudication of delinquency, and placing him on juvenile probation until the age of nineteen with special conditions. We affirm in all respects but note that a possible sentencing error may exist in the actual disposition order.
The disposition order reflects that the trial court imposed a total of $200 in costs and fees, whereas the trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence imposed a total of $150 in “court costs.” See W.S.G. v. State, 32 So.3d 725, 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (“If a discrepancy exists between the written sentence and the oral pronouncement, the written sentence must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement.” (quoting Guerra v. State, 927 So.2d 248, 249 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006))). However, because R.L.F. failed to preserve this potential error by filing a motion to correct sentencing error, this court must affirm. See Thomas v. State, 190 So.3d 222, 223 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (affirming without prejudice the defendant’s sentence because even though the written sentence failed to comport with the trial court’s oral pronouncement, the defendant failed to properly preserve the sentencing error). Our affirmance is without prejudice for R.L.F. to raise this possible sentencing error in an appropriate posteonviction motion. See id.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
228 So. 3d 633, 2017 WL 4393241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rlf-v-state-fladistctapp-2017.