Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

714 So. 2d 1038

Docket No. 96-03763.

As v. State

A.S., a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1998-04-17

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently February 2008

6 state decisions

Relies on DF, JR. v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1998-04-17

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow and Frank D.L. Winstead, Assistant Public Defender, Clearwater, for Appellant.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee and Michael J. Scionti, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

¶3FRANK, Acting Chief Judge.

¶4We affirm A.S.'s adjudication of delinquency. We remand this case, however, for correction of the sentence. Although the trial court orally pronounced that A.S.'s sentences for Counts I and II would be served concurrently, the written commitment order provides that the sentences are to run consecutively. "When there is a difference between a court's oral pronouncement and a written *1039 order, the oral pronouncement controls." D.F. v. State,650 So.2d 1097, 1098 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Accordingly, we remand for correction of the written order to conform to the oral pronouncement that the sentences are to run concurrently.

¶5Remanded with instructions.

¶6ALTENBERND and FULMER, JJ., concur.

/714/so2d/1038 · .json · Public domain