Avery v. State, 543 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). · Go Syfert
Search
Avery v. State, 543 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
15 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Miller v. State (fladistctapp, 1997-09-17)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Miller v. State (2×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
See Harmon v. State, 599 So.2d 754, 756-57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Avery v. State, 543 So.2d 296, 297 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).
cited Cited "see" Gibbs v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Avery v. State, 543 So.2d 296 (Fla. 5th DCA), dismissed, 553 So.2d 1164 (Fla.1989).
cited Cited "see" Robinson v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Avery v. State, 543 So.2d 296 (Fla. 5th DCA), dismissed, 553 So.2d 1164 (Fla.1989).
cited Cited "see" Major v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See Avery v. State, 543 So.2d 296 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. dismissed, 553 So.2d 1164 (Fla.1989).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Ellis v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Tory v. State, 686 So.2d 689 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); see also Avery v. State, 543 So.2d 296, 297 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).
James AVERY, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
88-95.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Apr 27, 1989.
543 So. 2d 296
Orfinger.
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published

James Avery, Lowell, pro se.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee and Colin Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

ORFINGER, Judge.

Appellant's convictions are affirmed. The State concedes, however, that the two five year terms of probation imposed at sentencing on two of the four counts were intended by the trial court to be served[*297] concurrently, as orally pronounced at the sentencing hearing, rather than consecutively as reflected in the written orders, and that the written orders thus reflect a clerical error. An oral pronouncement at sentencing is controlling when a clerical error causes the written order to be inconsistent with the oral pronouncement. See Venuti v. State, 437 So.2d 238 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). We therefore remand the written probation orders to the trial court with directions that they be corrected to reflect that they run concurrently, in accordance with the oral pronouncement.

Judgments AFFIRMED. Probation orders REMANDED for correction.

COBB and COWART, JJ., concur.