Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

749 So. 2d 550

Docket Nos. 97-03837, 98-03921.

Enchautegui v. State

Ernestor ENCHAUTEGUI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided January 7, 2000.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2000-01-07

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently September 2017

5 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[w]here the record demonstrates that during the oral pronouncement of sentence, the trial judge made inconsistent statements, the matter must be remanded to the trial court to clarify the sentence imposed and to enter such corrected sentencing orders as may be appropriate.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 969 So. 2d 399 - Franklin v. State

Relies on 686 So. 2d 689 - Tory v. State · 547 So. 2d 726 - Manual v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2000-01-07

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Richard J. Sanders, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Tonja R. Vickers, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

¶3WHATLEY, Acting Chief Judge.

¶4Ernestor Enchautegui appeals his judgments and sentences in several cases. We affirm his judgments without discussion. However, we reverse his sentences in four cases because the written sentencing orders do not conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement.

¶5The transcript of the sentencing hearing reflects that the trial court sentenced Enchautegui to four years in prison as a habitual offender in case numbers 96-2463F, 96-2464F, 96-2465F, and 96-2466F. The sentences are to be served concurrently. However, the written sentencing orders reflect that Enchautegui was sentenced to 40 years in prison as a habitual offender for the above four cases. The State argues that the trial court orally pronounced sentences of 40 years in prison and that the discrepancy is the result of an error by the court reporter.

¶6An oral pronouncement will most certainly prevail when the State concedes that the written sentence is in error. See Tory v. State,686 So.2d 689 (Fla. 4th DCA *551 1996). However, where the State does not concede such error, a conflict between the oral pronouncement and the written order requires a factual resolution by the trial court. Id. Here, the State does not concede error. Therefore, this cause must be remanded to the trial court to clarify the sentences imposed and to enter such corrected sentencing orders as may be appropriate. See Manual v. State,547 So.2d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (holding that where the written judgment and sentence do not conform to the oral pronouncement, on remand, the State may attempt to establish that the error was caused by the court reporter). Enchautegui's judgments and sentences are otherwise affirmed.

¶7Affirmed in part; remanded with directions to resolve conflict between the written sentencing orders and the oral pronouncement in case numbers 96-2463F, 96-2464F, 96-2465F, and 96-2466F.

¶8NORTHCUTT and GREEN, JJ., Concur.

/749/so2d/550 · .json · Public domain