Case Name: Rigoberto NODAL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1995-02-22
Citations: 650 So. 2d 696
Docket Number: No. 94-259
Parties: Rigoberto NODAL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before HUBBART, BASKIN and LEVY, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 650
Pages: 696–697

Head Matter:
Rigoberto NODAL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 94-259.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Feb. 22, 1995.
Rigoberto Nodal, in pro. per.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Mark Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.
Before HUBBART, BASKIN and LEVY, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendant Rigoberto Nodal from judgments of conviction and sentences for trafficking in marijuana and conspiracy to traffic in marijuana entered after a negotiated plea. We find no merit in any of the points raised by the defendant on appeal, save one. We conclude that the trial court committed reversible error in entering a written sentence imposing a three-year mandatory minimum sentence on the defendant because it does not conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement of sentence in open court in which a three-year mandatory minimum sentence was not imposed. The law is clear that the written sentence entered in a criminal case must conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement of sentence in open court. See, e.g., White v. State, 624 So.2d 811 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Urquiaga v. State, 624 So.2d 810 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Kord v. State, 508 So.2d 758 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).
The final judgment of convictions and sentences under review are affirmed, save for the imposition of the three-year mandatory minimum sentence imposed in this case, which sentence is hereby stricken.
Affirmed as modified.