Case No. 5D2024-2501L.T. Case No. 2024-MM-000364-A
ANTHONY EARL CRIM, JR.,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
On appeal from the County Court for Marion County.Thomas P. Thompson, III, Judge.
Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Darnelle Paige Lawshe,Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and KayleeDanielle Tatman, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, forAppellee.
July 24, 2026
PER CURIAM.
In this Anders1appeal, we affirm the judgment and sentence.However, the written sentence contains a scrivener’s error harmfulto Appellant which should be corrected upon remand as to Count
Original opinion page 2
21. “A written sentence that conflicts with the oral pronouncementof 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 orallypronounced a sentence on Count 1 of twelve months’ probation,with a special condition that the first forty-two days (minus fourdays’ credit for time served) be served in the Marion County Jail.On Counts 2 through 5, the trial court imposed consecutive twelvemonths’ probation on each count, with a special condition that fourdays be served in jail with credit on each count of four days’ timeserved.The written sentence, though, shows a jail sentence of forty-two days and twelve months’ probation for Count 1, and twelvemonths’ probation and a four-day jail term for each of Counts 2through 5, which are illegal sentences because they areinconsistent with the oral pronouncement and also exceed thestatutory maximum for each count. The written sentence shouldbe corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement.AFFIRMED; REMANDED for correction of scrivener’s error.EISNAUGLE, KILBANE, and MACIVER, JJ., concur._____________________________Not final until disposition of any timely andauthorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or9.331._____________________________
Footnotes
1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)Back to text
Opinion text and original PDF from Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal · Source opinion