A.S. v. State, 714 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
A.S. v. State, 714 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: R.S.M. v. State, 910 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 1038 Controlling oral pronouncement over written sentence1 citing caserecognizing that the oral pronouncement controls when there is a difference between the oral pronouncement and the written sentence1 citing court put it this way
  • Plourde v. State, 975 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).published
    (recognizing that the oral pronouncement controls when there is a difference between the oral pronouncement and the written sentence)
Other citing cases3 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
A.S., a child, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
96-03763.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Apr 17, 1998.
Published opinion
714 So. 2d 1038
1998 WL 279189
1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 4203
Frank.
Published

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

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

FRANK, Acting Chief Judge.

We 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.

Remanded with instructions.

ALTENBERND and FULMER, JJ., concur.