2024-0041•Luther v. State of Florida
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.
Vous vous demandez comment ce texte s’applique à votre situation ?
Consultation gratuite, sans engagement
Décrivez votre situation. Notre équipe vous recontactera par e-mail pour votre consultation.
Poursuivez vos recherches dans ChatGPT ou Claude
Connectez Omnilex pour rechercher dans le corpus juridique depuis votre assistant IA.