DREXEL C. ROBINSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court reversed three sentences and remanded for resentencing because the written judgments failed to conform to oral pronouncements, the sentences constituted improper interrupted sentences, violated statutory jail-time provisions, exceeded sentencing guidelines without stated reasons, and failed to award jail-time credit.
Sentences must conform to oral pronouncements, comply with statutory limitations on interrupted sentences and jail-time eligibility, remain within sentencing guidelines absent stated reasons for departure, and include credit for time served.
[1] Written judgments and sentences must conform to the oral pronouncements made by the trial court at sentencing.
[2] Interrupted sentences violate sentencing principles established in Calhoun, Lanier, and Sanchez.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobinson received three sentences that contained multiple errors: the written judgments did not match the oral pronouncements, the sentences were impr…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sentencing Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
WIGGINTON, Judge.
Appellant appeals three judgments and sentences, citing sentencing errors which the state concedes. We reverse and remand for resentencing.
The sentences imposed are erroneous in the following respects. The written judgments and sentences fail to conform to the oral pronouncements of sentence. See Sandstrom v. State, 390 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Further, the orally pronounced sentences are improper for several reasons: (1) They are violative of the principles set forth in Calhoun v. State, 522 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), Lanier v. State, 504 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), and Sanchez v. State, 538 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), in that they constitute interrupted sentences.' (2) They are violative of Section 922.051, Florida Statutes, which provides that when a statute expressly directs a state prison sentence, the court may impose a sentence of imprisonment in county jail if the total of the cumulative sentences is not more than one year. See Kline v. State, 509 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). (3) The total incarceration time also exceeds the guidelines recommendation of 12 to 30 months in prison in the absence of any reasons for departure, in violation of Rule 3.701(d)(ll), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Finally, the trial judge also erred in failing to award appellant credit for jail time. Willis v. State, 543 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).
Reversed and Remanded for resentencing in compliance with the above authorities.
SHIVERS, C.J., and WENTWORTH, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Norris Rogers v. State, 561 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…der Count V must be eliminated so as to make the written sentence conform to the trial court’s earlier oral pronouncement. We remand to the trial court with instructions to make the change in the written order as herein outlined. Robinson v. State, 548 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Sirmons v. State, 405 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Sandstrom v. State, 390 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). The motion is GRANTED. DELL, WALDEN and POLEN, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Sandstrom v. State, 390 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Lanier v. State, 504 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Calhoun v. State, 522 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Sanchez v. State, 538 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Kline v. State, 509 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Willis v. State, 543 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)