CRIM v. STATE (2026)

In this Anders ¹ appeal, we affirm the judgment and sentence. However, the written sentence contains a scrivener's error harmful to Appellant which should be corrected upon remand as to Count 1. “A written sentence that conflicts with the oral pronouncement of sentence imposed in open court is an illegal sentence.” Beard v. State, 27 So. 3d 186, 187 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (citing Williams v. State, 957 So. 2d 600, 603 (Fla. 2007)). “When a discrepancy exists, the oral pronouncement controls over the written.” Id.

In this case, the record reveals that the trial court orally pronounced a sentence on Count 1 of twelve months’ probation, with a special condition that the first forty-two days (minus four days’ credit for time served) be served in the Marion County Jail. On Counts 2 through 5, the trial court imposed consecutive twelve months’ probation on each count, with a special condition that four days be served in jail with credit on each count of four days’ time served.

The written sentence, though, shows a jail sentence of forty-two days and twelve months’ probation for Count 1, and twelve months’ probation and a four-day jail term for each of Counts 2 through 5, which are illegal sentences because they are inconsistent with the oral pronouncement and also exceed the statutory maximum for each count. The written sentence should be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement.

Affirmed; Remanded for correction of scrivener's error.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

Per Curiam.

Eisnaugle, Kilbane, and MacIver, JJ., concur.