GARVIN JACKSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Written Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Garvin Jackson seeks clarification of his sentence, and alleges the sentencing documents are inconsistent with the trial court’s oral pronouncement. According to the record, the trial court intended to impose concurrent sentences pursuant to a plea agreement. However, the “Concur-rent/Consecutive” selection block on the sentencing form was left blank.
A trial court’s written order on sentencing must be consistent with its oral pronouncement. Wright v. State, 600 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). When, as in this case, sentencing documents are inconsistent with the court’s pronouncement, the defendant is entitled to have the documents corrected. Kirkland v. State, 633 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
Accordingly, we remand to the trial court to clarify appellant’s sentence by conforming the written order to the oral pronouncement.
PARKER, A.C.J., and QUINCE and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Woods v. State, 711 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…n an unintentional violation. See Rowles v. State, 682 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Graham v. State, 658 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). On remand, the trial court should conform the written order to the oral pronouncement, see Jackson v. State, 674 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), and the condition should be modified to prohibit “intentional, unsupervised contact with children under the age of seventeen where no adult is present until Woods has successfully completed an outpatient sex offender program.” Se…
Authorities Cited
- Kirkland v. State, 633 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Wright v. State, 600 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)