Terry P. Powell v. State , 223 So. 3d 412 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •          IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
    FIFTH DISTRICT
    NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
    FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
    DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
    TERRY PAUL POWELL,
    Appellant,
    v.                                                         Case No. 5D16-1810
    STATE OF FLORIDA,
    Appellee.
    ________________________________/
    Opinion filed July 7, 2017
    Appeal from the Circuit Court
    for Citrus County,
    Victor J. Musleh, Senior
    Judge.
    James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and
    Matthew Funderburk, Assistant Public
    Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General,
    Tallahassee, and Nora Hutchinson Hall,
    Assistant Attorney General, Daytona
    Beach, for Appellee.
    PER CURIAM.
    Terry Paul Powell appeals from a sentence imposed after he was convicted
    following a jury trial of three offenses: assault (Count I), resisting an officer with violence
    (Count II), and battery on a law enforcement officer (Count III). He raises two issues on
    appeal: first, that the trial court improperly imposed drug offender probation on Count III,
    as there was insufficient evidence that Powell qualified as a "chronic substance abuser"
    under section 948.20, Florida Statutes (2015); and second, that his sentence on Count II
    contains a scrivener's error. We affirm his judgment and sentence, write to explain our
    reasoning, and remand for correction of the scrivener's error on Count II. 1         At the
    sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Powell to five years' incarceration on Count
    II as a prison releasee reoffender, and to three years' incarceration on Count III,
    consecutive to the term of imprisonment imposed on Count II, to be followed by two years'
    drug offender probation. In conflict with the oral pronouncement, the written sentence on
    Count II reflects five years' imprisonment to be followed by two years of drug offender
    probation.
    This Court reviews the trial court’s order imposing drug offender probation for an
    abuse of discretion. Sutton v. State, 
    128 So. 3d 957
    , 959 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) ("[I]t was
    within the trial judge's discretion to sentence Sutton to drug offender probation if it
    appeared to the court that Sutton was a 'chronic substance abuser.'"). While this record
    presents a close call, we conclude that the trial court's imposition of drug offender
    probation as to Count III was supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record.
    1 The State conceded error on the first issue, but for a different reason than argued
    by Powell. "A confession of error, however, is not binding upon an appellate court, and it
    is the practice of Florida appellate courts not to accept erroneous concessions by the
    state." Perry v. State, 
    808 So. 2d 268
    , 268 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (citations omitted).
    Specifically, the State conceded error because it believed that battery on a law
    enforcement officer does not qualify for drug offender probation as it does not "fall under
    the statutorily enumerated categories of offenses for which drug offender probation could
    be imposed." We disagree. See State v. Hearns, 
    961 So. 2d 211
    , 219 (Fla. 2007)
    ("[Battery on a law enforcement officer] is not a forcible felony under section 776.08."); §
    948.20(1), Fla. Stat. (2015) ("[T]he term 'nonviolent felony' means a third degree felony
    violation under chapter 810 or any other felony offense that is not a forcible felony as
    defined in s. 776.08.").
    2
    The trial court had before it, among other evidence, the testimony of two law enforcement
    officers establishing their familiarity with Powell due to numerous encounters with him
    over several years. Although the officers' testimony included only a limited factual basis,
    we cannot say that their testimony was not competent evidence. Further, the arrest
    affidavit indicated that Powell was under the influence of a controlled substance on the
    night of the incident. Given the substantial deference due the trial court here, we find no
    reversible error on this point.
    We agree that the written sentence contains a scrivener's error which should be
    corrected upon remand as to Count II. "A written sentence that conflicts with the oral
    pronouncement of 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 imposed a sentence on
    Count II of five years' incarceration, making no mention of drug offender probation on this
    count. The written sentence should be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement.
    AFFIRMED; REMANDED for correction of scrivener's error.
    COHEN, C.J., BERGER and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 5D16-1810

Citation Numbers: 223 So. 3d 412

Filed Date: 7/3/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023