Tetro v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tetro v. State

581 So. 2d 1009, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 7153, 1991 WL 128331

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 17, 1991·No. No. 90-3001·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. However, we remand so the judgment can be corrected. The state concedes that the written sentences do not conform to the trial judge’s oral pronouncements at sentencing. Avery v. State, 543 So.2d 296 (Fla. 5th DCA), appeal dismissed, 553 So.2d 1164 (1989) (when written orders are inconsistent with oral pronouncements made at sentencing, the oral pronouncements prevail). The written judgment should be corrected to reflect that as to counts II, III and IV the trial judge imposed sentences of forty years in prison concurrent with each other, but consecutive to the sentence imposed on count I.

HERSEY, STONE and GARRETT, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. However, we remand so the judgment can be corrected. The state concedes that the written sentences do not conform to the trial judge’s oral pronouncements at sentencing. Avery v. State, 543 So.2d 296 (Fla. 5th DCA), appeal dismissed, 553 So.2d 1164 (1989) (when written orders are inconsistent with oral pronouncements made at sentencing, the oral pronouncements prevail). The written judgment should be corrected to reflect that as to counts II, III and IV the trial judge imposed sentences of forty years in prison concurrent with each other, but consecutive to the sentence imposed on count I.

HERSEY, STONE and GARRETT, JJ., concur.

Tetro v. State, 581 So. 2d 1009, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 7153, 1991 WL 128331 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

581 So. 2d 1009 (Tetro v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related