Silva v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Silva v. State

732 So. 2d 457, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 6292, 1999 WL 300250

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 14, 1999

DocketNo. 98-00333

StatusPublished

This text of 732 So. 2d 457 (Silva 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

Silva v. State, 732 So. 2d 457, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 6292, 1999 WL 300250 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Dilip K. Silva appeals his convictions and sentences for first degree murder, armed robbery, attempted armed robbery, false imprisonment, and aggravated assault on law enforcement officers. We affirm the convictions and the sentences imposed, but remand for correction of the judgments and sentences to conform to the oral pronouncement.

Although the trial court orally pronounced that Silva’s life sentences for Counts II, III, and IV would be served [458]*458concurrently with each other and consecutively to the Count I life sentence for murder, the written judgments and sentences incorrectly provide that these sentences are to run concurrently with the sentence for Count I. For Counts V through X, the trial court orally imposed fifteen-year sentences, concurrent with each other, concurrent with the sentences for Counts II, III, and IV, and consecutive to the sentence for Count I. However, the judgments and sentences incorrectly provide that these fifteen-year sentences are to run concurrently with each other and consecutively to the Count I sentence, omitting any reference to Counts II, III arid IV. “The court’s oral pronouncement controls over the written sentencing document.” Ricks v. State, 725 So.2d 1205 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)(citing A.S. v. State, 714 So.2d 1038 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)).

Accordingly, we remand for correction of the written judgments and sentences to conform to the oral pronouncements.

FULMER, A.C.J., and WHATLEY, J„ and DANAHY, PAUL W., (Senior) Judge, Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Dilip K. Silva appeals his convictions and sentences for first degree murder, armed robbery, attempted armed robbery, false imprisonment, and aggravated assault on law enforcement officers. We affirm the convictions and the sentences imposed, but remand for correction of the judgments and sentences to conform to the oral pronouncement.

Although the trial court orally pronounced that Silva’s life sentences for Counts II, III, and IV would be served [458]*458concurrently with each other and consecutively to the Count I life sentence for murder, the written judgments and sentences incorrectly provide that these sentences are to run concurrently with the sentence for Count I. For Counts V through X, the trial court orally imposed fifteen-year sentences, concurrent with each other, concurrent with the sentences for Counts II, III, and IV, and consecutive to the sentence for Count I. However, the judgments and sentences incorrectly provide that these fifteen-year sentences are to run concurrently with each other and consecutively to the Count I sentence, omitting any reference to Counts II, III arid IV. “The court’s oral pronouncement controls over the written sentencing document.” Ricks v. State, 725 So.2d 1205 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)(citing A.S. v. State, 714 So.2d 1038 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)).

Accordingly, we remand for correction of the written judgments and sentences to conform to the oral pronouncements.

FULMER, A.C.J., and WHATLEY, J„ and DANAHY, PAUL W., (Senior) Judge, Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

732 So. 2d 457, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 6292, 1999 WL 300250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silva-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack