Verble v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Verble v. State

636 So. 2d 890, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 4688, 1994 WL 190009

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 18, 1994

DocketNo. 93-1325

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 636 So. 2d 890 (Verble 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

Verble v. State, 636 So. 2d 890, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 4688, 1994 WL 190009 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

John Ernest Verble has appealed from judgment and sentence imposed following his plea of nolo contendere to shooting into a building and carrying a concealed firearm. We reverse, and remand for resentencing.

Verble was charged with shooting into a building, aggravated assault, and carrying a concealed firearm (Counts I — III, respectively). The trial court thereafter accepted his plea of nolo contendere to Counts I and III, in return for a guidelines sentence and a nolle prosequi of Count II.

The scoresheet prepared for sentencing reflected a total of 68 points, corresponding [891]*891to a permitted sentence of up to 4)6 years incarceration. At sentencing, the trial court orally pronounced a single split sentence of “3)6 years [incarceration] and 5 [years] probation.” The written judgment adjudicated Verble guilty of Counts I and III (denominated Counts 001 and 003). The written sentences indicate, as to “Count 00 — ,”, 3 years and 6 months plus 5 years probation and, as to “Count 002,” 3 years and 6 months (no probation). Finally, the written probation order imposes probation “for a period of 5 years, each count concurrent, but consecutive to 3]6 years prison.”

A trial court must impose a sentence for each offense. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(12). The trial judge herein pronounced a single split sentence of 3)6 years incarceration followed by 5 years probation, without specifying the offense to which the sentence applied.¹ While the written judgment and sentence purport to impose a sentence for each offense, the oral pronouncement of sentence prevails over the written judgment and sentence form. Armstead v. State, 612 So.2d 623, 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Further, the written sentences are ambiguous as to the counts to which they pertain, that is, one specifies “Count 00 — ,” and the other “Count 002” (which the state dismissed as part of Verble’s plea bargain). Finally, the written probation order appears to impose probation as to both counts which, as noted, would result in an illegal sentence as to the offense of carrying a concealed firearm.

Based on the totality of the circumstances as set forth above, we reverse the sentences imposed below, and remand for resentencing.

ZEHMER, C.J., SMITH, J., and WENTWORTH, Senior Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

John Ernest Verble has appealed from judgment and sentence imposed following his plea of nolo contendere to shooting into a building and carrying a concealed firearm. We reverse, and remand for resentencing.

Verble was charged with shooting into a building, aggravated assault, and carrying a concealed firearm (Counts I — III, respectively). The trial court thereafter accepted his plea of nolo contendere to Counts I and III, in return for a guidelines sentence and a nolle prosequi of Count II.

The scoresheet prepared for sentencing reflected a total of 68 points, corresponding [891]*891to a permitted sentence of up to 4)6 years incarceration. At sentencing, the trial court orally pronounced a single split sentence of “3)6 years [incarceration] and 5 [years] probation.” The written judgment adjudicated Verble guilty of Counts I and III (denominated Counts 001 and 003). The written sentences indicate, as to “Count 00 — ,”, 3 years and 6 months plus 5 years probation and, as to “Count 002,” 3 years and 6 months (no probation). Finally, the written probation order imposes probation “for a period of 5 years, each count concurrent, but consecutive to 3]6 years prison.”

A trial court must impose a sentence for each offense. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(12). The trial judge herein pronounced a single split sentence of 3)6 years incarceration followed by 5 years probation, without specifying the offense to which the sentence applied.¹ While the written judgment and sentence purport to impose a sentence for each offense, the oral pronouncement of sentence prevails over the written judgment and sentence form. Armstead v. State, 612 So.2d 623, 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Further, the written sentences are ambiguous as to the counts to which they pertain, that is, one specifies “Count 00 — ,” and the other “Count 002” (which the state dismissed as part of Verble’s plea bargain). Finally, the written probation order appears to impose probation as to both counts which, as noted, would result in an illegal sentence as to the offense of carrying a concealed firearm.

Based on the totality of the circumstances as set forth above, we reverse the sentences imposed below, and remand for resentencing.

ZEHMER, C.J., SMITH, J., and WENTWORTH, Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

636 So. 2d 890, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 4688, 1994 WL 190009, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/verble-v-state-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack