Harden v. StateHarden v. State
Elijah Harden requests that this court remand this cause with directions to enter the sentеncing order in accordance with the trial court‘s oral pronouncements on the authority of Mott v. State, 489 So.2d 854 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). The state agrees that the оral pronouncements of the court do not agree with the written sentence and also asks that this matter be remanded.
The appellant entered a plea of guilty. Thе court withheld adjudication of guilt and plaсed the defendant on probation for three and a half years with special cоnditions that he serve 190 days in the Osceola County Jail and pay $255 for investigative costs; in addition, the court imposed a $200 public defendеr lien. The written sentence signed by the trial judge indiсated that the defendant was adjudicatеd guilty, that he was committed to the custody of the sheriff of Osceola County for a term of 190 dаys with 14 days credit for time served, that a $200 special public defender lien was imposed, аnd that $255 investigative costs were assessed. An “Ordеr Withholding Adjudication of Guilt and Placing Defendant оn Probation” was signed by the trial court, indicating thаt the defendant was placed on prоbation for a period of three and оne-half years and, among other conditiоns, that the defendant pay $20 to the Florida Crimes Compensation Trust Fund and $200 as court costs pursuant to Section 27.3455, Florida Statutes.
The state concedes that oral pronouncements prevail over clerical errors. Venuti v. State, 437 So.2d 238 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), and Mott v. State, 489 So.2d 854 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).
REMANDED FOR CORRECTION OF WRITTEN SENTENCE.
GRIFFIN, J., concurs.
COBB, J., concurs specially with opinion.
COBB, Judge, concurring specially.
While I concur with the instant result, given the concession by the state, I do nоt agree that verbal pronouncemеnts necessarily prevail over written sentences. As we pointed out in Wilkins v. State, 543 So.2d 800, 802 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 554 So.2d 1170 (Fla. 1989), such conflicts, absent such a concession, would require a factual resolution by the trial court to determine whether the error below was verbal or clerical. See also, Marchand v. State, 546 So.2d 1184 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).