Background
Jayson Ardila entered an open guilty plea to the charged offenses in two Seminole County criminal cases. The circuit court entered a judgment and imposed sentence.
Ardila appealed through a proceeding under Anders v. California. During its review, the Fifth District identified a clerical error in the written sentence for Case No. 2022-CF-002230-A.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed Ardila’s judgment and sentence. The court did not identify any basis for reversing the convictions or the sentence orally imposed by the trial court.
The court nevertheless remanded with directions to enter an amended judgment correcting the written sentence in Case No. 2022-CF-002230-A to reflect that Ardila was sentenced to five years in prison on count two. Citing Ashley v. State, the court explained that the trial court’s oral pronouncement controls when it conflicts with the written sentence.
Key Takeaways
- The Fifth District affirmed Ardila’s judgment and sentence following an Anders review.
- A discrepancy between an oral sentencing pronouncement and the written sentence may be corrected on remand as a clerical error.
- The amended judgment must show a five-year prison sentence on count two in Case No. 2022-CF-002230-A.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that an otherwise valid criminal judgment and sentence need not be reversed merely because the written sentencing document fails to match the sentence pronounced in court. A limited remand can correct the written record while leaving the judgment and orally imposed sentence intact.