Case Name: Steven James SCHWARTZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2000-03-10
Citations: 752 So. 2d 1257
Docket Number: No. 2D99-1442
Parties: Steven James SCHWARTZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SALCINES, J., Concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 752
Pages: 1257–1257

Head Matter:
Steven James SCHWARTZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 2D99-1442.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
March 10, 2000.
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Richard P. Albertine, Jr., Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Ronald Napolitano, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

Opinion:
PARKER, Judge.
Steven James Schwartz (Schwartz) challenges the trial court's order finding him in violation of the terms of his community control and modifying his sentence accordingly. We affirm the trial court's finding that Schwartz violated the terms of his community control without discussion; however, we remand for correction of three sentencing errors.
First, Schwartz alleges, and the State properly concedes, that the trial court erred in imposing one general sentence for three different convictions. See Dorfman v. State, 351 So.2d 954 (Fla.1977). On remand, the trial court must impose a separate sentence for each conviction.
Second, Schwartz alleges, and the State again concedes, that the sentences for his two second-degree felony convictions are illegal because they exceed the statutory maximum of fifteen years. See § 775.082(3)(e), Fla. Stat. (1995). On remand, the trial court must impose a sentence for these convictions which does not exceed the fifteen-year statutory maximum.
Third, Schwartz alleges, and the State concedes, that the trial court erred in entering a written order which contains findings materially different from those orally pronounced at sentencing. Upon remand, the trial court must enter a written order that accurately reflects its oral pronouncement concerning which community control conditions Schwartz violated.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SALCINES, J., Concur.