Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

696 So. 2d 952

Gillen v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1997-07-16

Relies on 414 So. 2d 1117 - Daniels v. State · Howard v. State · 677 So. 2d 1366 - Davis v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1997-07-16

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently October 2017

3 state decisions

10199720002010decided

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 →

PER CURIAM.

¶1Defendant argues that the written sentence is not correct in that it does not reflect the amount of jail credit orally pronounced at the sentencing hearing. He argues that the trial judge orally announced that he would give defendant the same credit as was given by the court in Brevard County. A certified copy of the sentence from Brevard County does in fact show that the court there gave him credit for 233 days. Additionally, the trial judge also announced credit of 17 days for the time spent here awaiting sentence. The written sentence shows only the 17 days but lacks the 233 days.

¶2Where the written sentence does not conform to the court’s oral pronouncement of judgment and sentence, the latter prevails. Kelly v. State, 414 So.2d 1117 (Fla. *9534th DCA 1982); Howard v. State, 591 So.2d 1067 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). The record in this case shows without contradiction that, in accepting the plea for an upward departure sentence, the trial court specifically intended to award the defendant the same amount of jail credit that he had previously received in a separate case in Brevard County. In addition, the record demonstrates that the trial court also intended to award 17 days jail credit for the time incarcerated before the imposition of this sentence.

¶3Under these circumstances, remand for correction of the written sentence is necessary because the written sentence does not reflect the intent of the orally pronounced sentence. See Martindale v. State, 678 So.2d 883 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (remand for correction of written sentence is required where intent of oral pronouncement is not reflected in the written sentence); Davis v. State, 677 So.2d 1366 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (written sentence must conform to trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence); see also Benson v. State, 613 So.2d 555 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (defendant who entered into plea agreement that sentence was to run concurrent with his sentence in another county held entitled to jail credit for time served in the other county).

¶4REVERSED AND REMANDED TO CORRECT SENTENCE TO REFLECT PROPER CREDIT.

GUNTHER, POLEN and FARMER, JJ., concur.
/696/so2d/952 · .json · Public domain