Background
Otis James Simpson appealed his conviction and sentence from the Circuit Court for Leon County, where Circuit Judge Stephen S. Everett presided.
Simpson’s written judgment and sentence classified him as a habitual felony offender. The State, however, had not sought that designation, and the trial court had not announced it when orally pronouncing Simpson’s adjudication and sentence.
The Court’s Holding
The First District Court of Appeal affirmed Simpson’s conviction and sentence. It concluded that the habitual-felony-offender designation in the written judgment and sentence was a scrivener’s error because it was a clerical discrepancy rather than the result of a judicial determination.
Because the trial court’s oral pronouncement controls over the written sentence, the court remanded with instructions to strike the habitual-felony-offender designation. Simpson need not be present for the correction because it is a ministerial act requiring no judicial discretion.
Key Takeaways
- A written habitual-felony-offender designation cannot stand when the State did not seek it and the sentencing court did not orally pronounce it.
- The trial court’s oral sentencing pronouncement controls over a conflicting written sentence.
- A defendant need not be present when the trial court corrects a scrivener’s error through a purely ministerial act.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that written criminal judgments must accurately reflect the sentence pronounced in court. An unannounced habitual-felony-offender classification may be removed as a clerical error without disturbing an otherwise affirmed conviction and sentence.