2024-0041•Luther v. State of Florida
Full text
FIRST D ISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL S TATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ No. 1D2024-0041 _____________________________ J OSEPH LUTHER , Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee. _____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Taylor County. Gregory Stuart Parker, Judge. April 29, 2026 P ER C URIAM. 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.
2 R AY , W INOKUR , and TREADWELL , JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________ Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Richard M. Bracey, III, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant. James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Julian E. Markham, III, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
OCR transcription; preserved printed pages are authoritative
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA No. 1D2024-0041 JOSEPH LUTHER, Appellant, Vv. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. 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. Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Richard M. Bracey, III, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant. James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Julian E. Markhan, III, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Wondering how this text applies to your situation?
Free consultation, no commitment
Describe your situation. Our team will contact you by email about your consultation.
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.