Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
JAMES THOMAS MARLEY, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
James Thomas Marley appeals his convictions and sentences for battery of a law enforcement officer, resisting a law enforcement officer with violence, and soliciting while obstructing a street. We affirm the convictions and sentences without comment, but we reverse and remand the Monetary Obligations Order because it exceeds the fine orally imposed at sentencing.
At sentencing, the trial court imposed a $200 fine for cost of prosecution. However, in the Monetary Obligations Order that followed, the court ordered Marley to pay $100 in mandatory prosecution costs and $200 in additional mandatory costs of prosecution, for a total of $300. Marley filed a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) seeking to conform the Monetary Obligations Order to the trial court's oral pronouncement. The State did not oppose Marley's motion, but the trial court did not rule on it within sixty days. As a result, Marley's motion was deemed denied. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2)(B) (“[I]f the trial court does not file an order ruling on the [rule 3.800(b)(2)] motion within 60 days, the motion shall be deemed denied.”).
The trial court's oral pronouncement at sentencing controls over its written order. Williams v. State, 957 So. 2d 600, 603 (Fla. 2007). We therefore reverse the Monetary Obligations Order and remand with instructions to conform the order to the fine imposed at sentencing.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
LABRIT, Judge.
KELLY and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 2D21-2071
Decided: December 02, 2022
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)