Brammer v. State

Paul BRAMMER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided January 5, 1990.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1990-01-05

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“When there is a discrepancy between the written sentence and the oral pronouncement of sentence, the latter prevails.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Thomas v. State

Relies on 462 So. 2d 115 - Bogan v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1990-01-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently December 2015

9 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and D.P. Chanco, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Elaine L. Thompson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4Appellant raises error only as to the sentence imposed for count I of his multi-count conviction. He was orally sentenced on that count to five years probation with the first 364 days to be served in county jail. However, appellant's written sentence for count I indicates a sentence of 364 days followed by five years probation.

¶5As the parties agree, when there is a discrepancy between the written sentence and the oral pronouncement of sentence, the latter prevails. See Bogan v. State,462 So.2d 115 (Fla.2d DCA 1985). Therefore, we remand with directions to conform the written sentence as to count I to the oral pronouncement of sentence. Otherwise, affirmed.

¶6SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.