GREENE v. STATE

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

Case No. 1D03-1132.

Advocates

Appellant, pro se. Charlie Crist, Attorney General, and Elizabeth Fletcher Duffy, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Judges

PER CURIAM.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant, Ernest A. Greene, pled guilty to several offenses, including burglary while armed. He was sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender to eighteen years of imprisonment followed by ten years of probation on the burglary count. Pursuant to Heggs v. State, the appellant was resentenced to eighty months of imprisonment. However, the written sentence imposed included an eighty-month term followed by ten years of probation, which the appellant challenged. The trial court summarily denied his postconviction motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), prompting this appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the written sentence, which included a ten-year probation term not orally pronounced by the trial court, was legally valid.
Whether the trial court erred in summarily denying the appellant's postconviction motion challenging the imposition of probation.
Whether imposing sentencing terms not orally pronounced violates the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla. 2000)	Entitlement to de novo sentencing hearing following resentencing.	Appellant’s resentencing was pursuant to Heggs, entitling him to a full resentencing with due process protections.
Trotter v. State, 825 So.2d 362, 368 (Fla. 2002)	Due process requirements in resentencing hearings.	Supported the principle that resentencing must include all due process considerations.
Gonzalez v. State, 838 So.2d 1242 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)	Requirement for trial courts to pronounce all sentencing terms.	Reinforced that the trial court must pronounce every term of sentencing to ensure the written sentence reflects the oral pronouncement.
Williams v. State, 801 So.2d 284 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)	Oral pronouncement controls over written sentencing documents.	Established that the oral pronouncement governs the sentencing terms over the written sentence.
Ashley v. State, 28 Fla. L. Weekly S18 (Jan. 9, 2003)	Oral pronouncement prevails; sentencing terms not orally pronounced violate double jeopardy.	Held that imposing sentencing terms not orally pronounced violates constitutional double jeopardy protections, guiding the court’s reversal of the written probation term.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reasoned that because the appellant’s written sentence did not conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement, the written probation term could not stand. The court emphasized the general rule that the oral pronouncement of sentence controls over the written sentencing document. Citing precedent, the court explained that resentencing following Heggs requires a de novo hearing with full due process protections, including the trial court’s clear oral pronouncement of all sentencing terms. The trial court erred by imposing a probation term in the written sentence that was not orally pronounced, thereby violating the constitutional protection against double jeopardy. Accordingly, the court reversed the trial court’s summary denial of the appellant’s postconviction motion and remanded with instructions to strike the probation term from the written sentence.

Holding and Implications

REVERSED and REMANDED.

The court reversed the trial court’s order summarily denying the appellant’s postconviction motion and remanded the case with instructions to strike the ten-year probation term from the written sentence. This decision directly affects the parties by correcting the sentencing discrepancy to conform with the oral pronouncement and constitutional protections. The opinion does not establish new precedent beyond the application of established principles regarding sentencing pronouncements and double jeopardy.

Show full summary ...

ERNEST A. GREENE, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges the trial court's order summarily denying his postconviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Because the appellant's written sentence does not conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement, we reverse.

The appellant pled guilty to several offenses, including burglary while armed, and was sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender to eighteen years of imprisonment, followed by ten years of probation, on the burglary count. Pursuant to Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla. 2000), the appellant was resentenced to eighty months of imprisonment. However, the written sentence provided for a habitual violent felony offender sentence of eighty months, followed by ten years of probation. The appellant challenges the imposition of probation.

Resentencing pursuant to Heggs entitled the appellant to a de novo sentencing hearing with the full array of due process considerations.Trotter v. State, 825 So.2d 362, 368 (Fla. 2002); Gonzalez v. State, 838 So.2d 1242 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Therefore, the trial court should have pronounced each and every term of sentencing to ensure that the written sentence would be given effect. See Williams v. State, 801 So.2d 284 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

In denying the appellant's motion, the trial court disregarded the general rule that the court's oral pronouncement prevails over the written sentence. See Ashley v. State, 28 Fla. L. Weekly S18 (Jan. 9, 2003). When the trial court imposes sentencing terms that were not orally pronounced, the court violates the constitutional protection against double jeopardy. Id. Accordingly, the trial court's order is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court to strike the ten-year term of probation from the written sentence.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

WOLF, C.J., LEWIS and POLSTON, JJ., CONCUR.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED