FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-3758

_____________________________

RAYMOND PARKER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Taylor County.

Greg S. Parker, Judge.

July 9, 2019

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Raymond Parker, was adjudicated guilty of firstdegree murder while armed, burglary and battery while armed, 

and aggravated stalking. We affirm Appellant’s convictions

without further discussion. However, we must reverse the written 

sentence imposed for aggravated stalking and remand 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 Ashley 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 should 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, 

Appellant 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.

AFFIRMED, in part, REVERSED, in part, and REMANDED with 

instructions.

ROWE, JAY, and M.K. THOMAS, 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 

was 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.