When someone is sentenced in a criminal case, two things happen. First, the judge says the sentence out loud in the courtroom. Later, that sentence is written down in a formal document. Most people assume these two records will always match — but sometimes they don’t.
That mismatch matters. The written paperwork is what follows a person going forward, so an error there can describe a harsher or different punishment than the one the judge actually announced. Courts have a specific way of handling this kind of conflict.
This issue came up in Crim v. State, a recent decision from Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewing a case out of Marion County.
Key Takeaway
In Florida, when the written sentence conflicts with what the judge said out loud in court, the spoken sentence controls, and the written document must be corrected to match.
What happened in this case?
The defendant appealed his judgment and sentence. The appeal came to the court through what is known as an Anders appeal, a process used when appointed counsel reviews the record for issues to raise on a client’s behalf.
The appeals court affirmed the judgment and sentence overall. But in reviewing the record, it found a problem with how the sentence was written down.
What was the difference between the spoken and written sentence?
According to the court, the judge announced one thing out loud but the paperwork said something different. On the first count, the judge orally imposed twelve months of probation with a special condition that the first forty-two days (minus four days of credit for time served) be served in jail.
The written document, however, listed a forty-two day jail sentence and twelve months of probation for that count. On the remaining counts, the written version also did not match what the judge had announced.
Why did the court call the written sentence illegal?
The court explained that under Florida law, a written sentence that conflicts with what the judge said in open court is an illegal sentence. When there is a discrepancy, the spoken sentence takes priority over the written one.
Here, the written sentences were problematic for two reasons: they did not match the judge’s oral pronouncement, and they exceeded the maximum punishment allowed by law for each count.
Oral versus written: which one wins?
Florida courts treat the judge’s spoken sentence as the true sentence. If the written paperwork says something different, the paperwork is corrected — not the other way around.
What did the court do about it?
The appeals court affirmed the judgment and sentence but sent the case back to the trial court. On remand, the written sentence must be corrected so that it conforms to what the judge actually said out loud in the courtroom.
This kind of fix is often called correcting a scrivener’s error — a clerical mistake in the written record that does not match the intended, spoken result.
Why does this matter to people going through the system?
The written sentence is the lasting official record of a person’s punishment. If it says something harsher or different from what the judge announced, that gap can have real consequences.
This decision illustrates a general principle in Florida law: the courtroom pronouncement is the controlling word, and written records are expected to reflect it accurately. Reviewing courts can order corrections when the two do not line up.
Disclaimer: This post is for general information only, is not legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, and does not predict or guarantee any result. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements. Before deciding, ask for free written information about the lawyer’s qualifications and experience.