Summary
finding that the trial court's oral pronouncement controlled over a conflicting written sentencing order
Summary of this case from Raines v. StateOpinion
No. 4D14–1130.
01-20-2016
Marcel D. THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Antony P. Ryan, Regional Counsel, and Louis G. Carres, Special Assistant Conflict Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, West Palm Beach, for appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Laura Fisher, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Antony P. Ryan, Regional Counsel, and Louis G. Carres, Special Assistant Conflict Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Laura Fisher, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges his sentence, arguing that the trial court's written order, finding six violations of probation, does not match the court's oral pronouncement, which found only that Appellant “violated [probation] by committing the criminal offense of robbery with a firearm.” “Where a trial court's written sentencing order conflicts with the oral pronouncement, the oral pronouncement controls.” Santiago v. State, 133 So.3d 1159, 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). The State concedes that the written order does not match the oral pronouncement. As the written order finds violations of probation not included in the oral pronouncement, the written order must be corrected.
As Appellant's other arguments lack merit, we decline to address them.
We affirm the imposition of costs, as these had been imposed in the original sentencing proceeding. The court did not have to orally impose them again at the sentencing for the violation of probation.
Affirmed and remanded for correction in conformance with the oral pronouncement.
WARNER, MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.