Luther v. State of Florida

2024-0041Fladistctapp1

Texte intégral

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.

Poursuivez vos recherches dans ChatGPT ou Claude

Connectez Omnilex pour rechercher dans le corpus juridique depuis votre assistant IA.