From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Avery v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
May 22, 1989
543 So. 2d 296 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

Opinion

No. 88-95.

April 27, 1989. Rehearing Denied May 22, 1989.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County; Charles M. Harris, Judge.

James Avery, Lowell, pro se.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee and Colin Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.


Appellant's convictions are affirmed. The State concedes, however, that the two five year terms of probation imposed at sentencing on two of the four counts were intended by the trial court to be served concurrently, as orally pronounced at the sentencing hearing, rather than consecutively as reflected in the written orders, and that the written orders thus reflect a clerical error. An oral pronouncement at sentencing is controlling when a clerical error causes the written order to be inconsistent with the oral pronouncement. See Venuti v. State, 437 So.2d 238 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). We therefore remand the written probation orders to the trial court with directions that they be corrected to reflect that they run concurrently, in accordance with the oral pronouncement.

Judgments AFFIRMED. Probation orders REMANDED for correction.

COBB and COWART, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Avery v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
May 22, 1989
543 So. 2d 296 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)
Case details for

Avery v. State

Case Details

Full title:JAMES AVERY, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: May 22, 1989

Citations

543 So. 2d 296 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

Citing Cases

Tetro v. State

The state concedes that the written sentences do not conform to the trial judge's oral pronouncements at…

Robinson v. State

We therefore remand to the trial court to correct the written sentence and conform it to the oral…