CLARENCE H. HALL, JR., 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 held that written sentences are invalid when they conflict with oral pronouncements regarding the immediate succession of probation after incarceration in a split sentence.
Defendant was convicted of three cocaine offenses and received written consecutive split sentences. However, the oral pronouncements and probation ord…
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 Split Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
DIAMANTIS, Judge.
Defendant appeals from the sentences imposed on him after he was convicted of three offenses of sale or delivery of cocaine in violation of section 893.13(l)(a)(l), Florida Statutes (1989). Defendant raises two issues on appeal, one of which we find has merit. Therefore, we vacate defendant’s sentences and remand this case to the trial court for resentencing.
After defendant was adjudicated an habitual offender he received three written consecutive split sentences of 3¥2 years incarceration followed by twenty years probation. However, at the sentencing hearing the trial court indicated that the probation imposed in each split sentence would be served concurrently. The probation orders reflect this same intent and are at variance with the written sentences. The written sentences imposed by the trial court are invalid because these sentences as imposed result in consecutive periods of incarceration interrupted by probation. Dykes v. State, 576 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Turner v. State, 551 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).
The state argues that the oral sentences are valid and that we should merely remand to correct a scrivener’s error because “verbal pronouncements prevail over clerical errors” in written sentences. See Wilkins v. State, 543 So. 2d 800, 802 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. den., 554 So. 2d 1170 (Fla.1989). While we agree with the proposition that verbal pronouncements prevail over clerical errors in written sentences, we reject this proposition’s applicability to the instant case because when a defendant receives a split sentence, the non-incarcerative portion must immediately follow the prison sanction. Turner, 551 So. 2d at 1248; Lanier v. State, 504 So. 2d 501, 502-503 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).
Accordingly, we vacate the defendant’s three sentences and remand for resentencing.
Sentences VACATED; REMANDED for resentencing.
DAUKSCH and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wofford v. State, 613 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…PER CURIAM. Appellant’s sentence is amended to correct a scrivener’s error which reflected appellant was entitled to 142 days’ credit for time served, rather than the 162 days calculated and announced at his sentencing. See Hall v. State, 579 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). As amended, appellant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed. AFFIRMED. GOSHORN, C.J., and HARRIS and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Wilkins v. State, 543 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Lanier v. State, 504 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Turner v. State, 551 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Dykes v. State, 576 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)