Case Name: Gregory EVERETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1996-08-07
Citations: 677 So. 2d 972
Docket Number: No. 94-03819
Parties: Gregory EVERETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: FRANK and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 677
Pages: 972–973

Head Matter:
Gregory EVERETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 94-03819.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Aug. 7, 1996.
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and John T. Kilcrease, Jr., Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Gregory Everett, pro se.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Dale E. Tarpley, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

Opinion:
THREADGILL, Chief Judge.
In this appeal filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we review the resentenc-ing of the appellant, Gregory Everett, after remand, as to four counts of committing a lewd and lascivious act upon a child. See Everette v. State, 640 So.2d 119 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). While Everett's new sentence is otherwise lawful, we conclude that its duration— including incarceration and probation — im-permissibly exceeds the total duration of the sentence originally imposed. See Thicklin v. State, 599 So.2d 202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Blackshear v. State, 531 So.2d 956 (Fla.1988); Beech v. State, 436 So.2d 82 (Fla.1983). We, therefore, once again reverse Everett's sentence and remand for further proceedings.
We note that contrary to the trial court's oral pronouncement, Everett's written probation order reflects that the probationary terms imposed on counts two, three, and four in this instance are to run concurrently. If that were accurate, the sentencing scheme herein would be entirely proper. Since, however, the trial court orally pronounced at sentencing that the probationary terms imposed on counts three and four were to run consecutively to that imposed on count two, the current sentence impermissibly exceeds the original by three years.
Accordingly, this cause is reversed and remanded for resentencing. Since the record reveals no remaining error, the case is affirmed in all other respects.
FRANK and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.