# A.S. v. State

> District Court of Appeal of Florida · April 17, 1998 · 714 So. 2d 1038

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7715477

## Case

- **Full name:** A.S., a child v. STATE of Florida
- **Court:** District Court of Appeal of Florida
- **Decided:** April 17, 1998
- **Citations:** 714 So. 2d 1038; 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 4203
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Frank
- **Judges:** Altenbernd, Frank, Fulmer
- **Cited by:** 7 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7715477

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that where there is a difference between the court’s oral pronouncement and the written order, the oral pronouncement controls
- recognizing that the oral pronouncement controls when there is a difference between the oral pronouncement and the written sentence

## Opinion text

FRANK, Acting Chief Judge.
We affirm A.S.’s adjudication of delinquen: cy. We remand this ease, however, for correction of the sentence. Although the trial court orally pronounced that A.S.’s sentences for Counts I and II would be served concurrently, the written commitment order provides that the sentences are to run consecutively. ‘When there is a difference between a court’s oral pronouncement and a written *1039 order, the oral pronouncement controls.” D.F. v. State, 650 So.2d 1097, 1098 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Accordingly, we remand for correction of the written order to conform to the oral pronouncement that the sentences are to run concurrently.
Remanded with instructions.
ALTENBERND and FULMER, JJ„ concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7715477. Public record. Not legal advice.