CELESTER BROWN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 appellate court affirmed the defendant's convictions but remanded the case to correct a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the written judgment, and to allow the trial judge to reconsider the sentence on one count.
The court held that the written judgment did not accurately reflect the oral pronouncements of conviction and that the sentence on one count should be reconsidered. However, the convictions themselves were affirmed as orally stated.
“We affirm the convictions as orally stated by the court upon, the following au [*871] thorities:”
Establishes that the court is affirming the convictions as they were orally pronounced.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was charged with breaking and entering a dwelling with assault and a lewd and lascivious assault on minors. The trial court orally found…
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 Lesser Included Offense cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was informed against by a two-count information. Count I alleged breaking and entering of a dwelling house and assault on persons lawfully therein. Count II alleged a lewd and lascivious or indecent assault upon male minors under the age of fourteen years. The appellant was found guilty as to the first count on the lesser included offense of entering without breaking, and guilty of Count II although the evidence indicated the assault was singular rather than plural. However, the written judgment indicated a conviction on both counts as alleged.
We affirm the convictions as orally stated by the court upon, the following au*871thorities: Peters v. State, Fla.1954, 76 So.2d 147; Hall v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 202; Dobry v. State, Fla.App.1968, 211 So.2d 603; State v. Wright, Fla.1969, 224 So.2d 300; People v. Keene, 391 Ill. 305, 63 N.E.2d 509; State v. Boone, Mo.1926, 289 S.W. 575; State v. Culbertson, Mo.App.1934, 74 S.W.2d 375; 17 Fla.Jur., Indictments and Informations, § 96; 42 C.J.S. Indictments and Informations §§ 168a, 264. However, we return the matter to the trial court with directions to enter a correct written judgment in accordance with the oral pronouncement at the conclusion of the trial as to Count I. See: Hart v. State, Fla.1952, 60 So.2d 489; Matera v. State, Fla.App.1969, 218 So.2d 180. We also vacate the sentence as to Count I in the event the trial judge should desire to reconsider this matter. It is, however, noted that the sentence imposed was not beyond the limits set in § 810.03, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
Affirmed as modified, with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Matera v. State, 218 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- State v. Wright, 224 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 1969)
- Fid. & Cas. Co. of N.Y. v. Bedingfield, 60 So.2d 489 (Fla. 1952)
- Peters v. State, 76 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 1954)
- Hall v. State, 203 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)
- Dobry v. State, 211 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Rebon v. State, 203 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)