## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 3758

_____________________________
R AYMOND P ARKER , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Taylor County

. Greg S. Parker , Judge

. July 9, 2019

P ER C URIAM

. Appellant, Raymond Parker, was adjudicated guilty of first

degree murder while armed, burglary and battery while armed, and aggravated stalking. We affirm Appellant’s convictions without further discussion

. However, w e must reverse the written sentence imposed for aggravated stalking and re mand for resentencing only as to that count

. In this case, the record demonstrates that the written sentence does not conform to the oral pronouncement. The trial court orally pronounced a sentence of five years’ imprisonment on the aggravated stalking count , but the written sentence imposed a life sentence on that count

. The State concedes error.2 It is “a longstanding principle of law

— that a court’s oral pronouncement of sentence controls over the written document.” Ashley v. State , 850 So. 2d 1265, 1268 (Fla. 2003); see also Nelson v. State

, 148 So. 3d 173 , 174 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (citing Ashl e y and reaffirming that “[t] he oral pronouncement of sentence controls over the written sentence ”) . “To hold otherwise does serious harm to the double jeopardy principles which have guided our courts for centuries.” Ashley , 850 So. 2d at 1268

- 69. The State’s concession of

error , therefore, is well

- taken. Wallach v. State , 242 So. 3d 442, 443 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).

“ Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and the written sentence, we shou ld remand for the trial court to conform the written sentence to the oral pronouncement. ” Frost v. State , 769 So. 2d 443 , 444 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (mem.) (citing Willis v. State , 656 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) ) . Accordingly, Appellant’s case is remanded with instructions that the written sentence for the count of aggravated stalking be conformed to the oral pronouncement. ∗ Upon remand, A ppellant need not be present for the correction of the sentence

, since the correction “ is merely a ministerial act. ” Id. (citing Farmer v. State , 670 So. 2d 1143, 1144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) ) ; accord Sol v. State

, 268 So. 3d 749 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (citing Frost , 769 So. 2d at 444) . In all other respects the judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed

.
A FFIRMED , in pa rt , R EVERSED , in part
, and R EMANDED with instructions

.
R OWE , J AY , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

∗ Appellant preserved this issue by filing a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). The trial court failed to act on the motion within sixty days. Therefore, the motion

wa s deemed denied. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2)(B).3 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Kathryn Lane, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee

, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Tabitha Herrera, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee

, for Appellee.