Sullivan v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sullivan v. State

538 So. 2d 553, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 535, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 996, 1989 WL 14549

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 22, 1989

DocketNo. 88-1733

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 538 So. 2d 553 (Sullivan 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

Sullivan v. State, 538 So. 2d 553, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 535, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 996, 1989 WL 14549 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

SMITH, Chief Judge.

Appellant appeals his written sentences which allegedly do not conform to the oral pronouncement of sentence by the court. The written plea agreement, the representations by counsel at the plea and sentencing hearings, and the equivocal oral pronouncement of sentence found in the sentencing transcript are apparently at odds with one another. However, this court is at a decided disadvantage in attempting to determine, in the first instance, just how and why the inconsistencies appearing in the record occurred. Accordingly, the case is remanded to the trial court to enter an order clarifying the sentences. See Robinson v. State, 407 So.2d 1038 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The state has conceded that the written judgment as to Count I of the indictment is in error and should be corrected.

REVERSED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

ERVIN and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.

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

SMITH, Chief Judge.

Appellant appeals his written sentences which allegedly do not conform to the oral pronouncement of sentence by the court. The written plea agreement, the representations by counsel at the plea and sentencing hearings, and the equivocal oral pronouncement of sentence found in the sentencing transcript are apparently at odds with one another. However, this court is at a decided disadvantage in attempting to determine, in the first instance, just how and why the inconsistencies appearing in the record occurred. Accordingly, the case is remanded to the trial court to enter an order clarifying the sentences. See Robinson v. State, 407 So.2d 1038 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The state has conceded that the written judgment as to Count I of the indictment is in error and should be corrected.

REVERSED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

ERVIN and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

538 So. 2d 553, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 535, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 996, 1989 WL 14549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sullivan-v-state-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack