LUTHER
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A written sentencing order must conform to the orally pronounced sentence, and where there is conflict, the orally pronounced sentence prevails.
[1] When a trial court's written sentencing order conflicts with its oral pronouncement of sentence, the oral pronouncement controls and the written order must be corrected t…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A written sentencing order must conform to the orally pronounced sentence, and where there is conflict, the orally pronounced sentence prevails.”
Court's statement of controlling law regarding the relationship between oral and written sentencing orders.
Luther was sentenced by the trial court to concurrent life sentences for Counts I and II, but the written sentencing order incorrectly stated the sent…
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.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
JOSEPH LUTHER, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
No. 1D2024-0041
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Taylor County. Gregory Stuart Parker, Judge.
April 29, 2026
PER CURIAM.
Appellant raises several issues on appeal, but we write to address only one. The trial court orally pronounced concurrent life sentences for Counts I and II, but the written order states that the sentences are to be served consecutively. The State correctly concedes error. A written sentencing order must conform to the orally pronounced sentence, and where there is conflict, the orally pronounced sentence prevails. Ashley v. State, 850 So. 2d 1265, 1268 (Fla. 2003); Morris v. State, 292 So. 3d 838, 839 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020). We therefore REVERSE IN PART and REMAND for the trial court to enter a written sentencing order in conformity with its oral pronouncement. We AFFIRM the judgment and sentence in all other respects.
RAY, WINOKUR, and TREADWELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Columbus Rickey Ashley v. State, 850 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 2003)
- Chrisean Dion Jones v. State, 292 So. 3d 838 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)