What did the court decide?

The appellate court found a conflict between the oral sentence (concurrent life terms) and the written order (consecutive terms) and ordered the trial court to correct the written order to match the oral sentence.

Who is affected by this decision?

Joseph Luther is directly affected because his written sentence will be changed to reflect concurrent life terms; the State and trial court are affected insofar as they must enter a corrected written order.

The case is remanded to the trial court for entry of a written sentencing order that conforms to the orally pronounced concurrent sentences.

Can this decision be appealed further?

The opinion notes it is not final until the disposition of any timely, authorized motion under the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure; further appellate review would depend on the filing of such motions or a petition to a higher court if permitted.

Luther v. State of Florida

Docket 1D2024-0041

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

Criminal Appeal

Filed: Apr 29, 2026 · 2 days ago
Jurisdiction: Florida
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
Type: Opinion
Case type: Criminal Appeal
Docket: 1D2024-0041

Appeal from sentencing in a criminal case in the Circuit Court for Taylor County

Summary

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed Joseph Luther’s appeal and addressed a sentencing discrepancy. The trial court orally pronounced concurrent life sentences on Counts I and II, but the written sentencing order incorrectly stated the sentences would run consecutively. Because the orally pronounced sentence controls when the written order conflicts, the court reversed in part and remanded for the trial court to enter a written sentence matching the oral pronouncement. The remainder of the judgment and sentence was affirmed.

Issues Decided

Whether the written sentencing order that states consecutive life sentences conflicts with the trial court's orally pronounced concurrent life sentences
Whether the appellate court should remand for entry of a written sentence that conforms to the oral pronouncement

Court's Reasoning

Florida law requires the written sentencing order to conform to the orally pronounced sentence, and when there is a conflict the oral pronouncement controls. The State conceded the discrepancy and controlling precedent (Ashley v. State and Morris v. State) supports reversing the portion of the written order that conflicts and remanding for a correcting written order. Because only the sentencing-order inconsistency was at issue, the court affirmed the judgment and all other aspects of the sentence.

Authorities Cited

Ashley v. State850 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 2003)
Morris v. State292 So. 3d 838 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)

Parties

Appellant: Joseph Luther
Appellee: State of Florida
Judge: Gregory Stuart Parker
Attorney: Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender
Attorney: Richard M. Bracey, III, Assistant Public Defender
Attorney: James Uthmeier, Attorney General
Attorney: Julian E. Markham, III

Key Dates

Decision date: 2026-04-29

What You Should Do Next

1
Trial court to enter corrected written sentence
The trial court should prepare and enter a written sentencing order that conforms to its oral pronouncement of concurrent life sentences for Counts I and II.
2
Defense confirm entry and obtain amended judgment
Appellant's counsel should monitor the trial court to ensure the corrected written order is entered and obtain a copy of the amended judgment for the record.
3
Consider post-decision motions
Either party may consider filing any authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331 if they believe further relief or clarification is necessary.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The appellate court found a conflict between the oral sentence (concurrent life terms) and the written order (consecutive terms) and ordered the trial court to correct the written order to match the oral sentence.
Who is affected by this decision?: Joseph Luther is directly affected because his written sentence will be changed to reflect concurrent life terms; the State and trial court are affected insofar as they must enter a corrected written order.
What happens next?: The case is remanded to the trial court for entry of a written sentencing order that conforms to the orally pronounced concurrent sentences.
Can this decision be appealed further?: The opinion notes it is not final until the disposition of any timely, authorized motion under the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure; further appellate review would depend on the filing of such motions or a petition to a higher court if permitted.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                 STATE OF FLORIDA
                  _____________________________

                         No. 1D2024-0041
                  _____________________________

JOSEPH LUTHER,

    Appellant,

    v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

    Appellee.
                  _____________________________


On appeal from the Circuit Court for Taylor County.
Gregory Stuart Parker, Judge.


                           April 29, 2026

PER CURIAM.

     Appellant raises several issues on appeal, but we write to
address only one. The trial court orally pronounced concurrent life
sentences for Counts I and II, but the written order states that the
sentences are to be served consecutively. The State correctly
concedes error. A written sentencing order must conform to the
orally pronounced sentence, and where there is conflict, the orally
pronounced sentence prevails. Ashley v. State, 850 So. 2d 1265,
1268 (Fla. 2003); Morris v. State, 292 So. 3d 838, 839 (Fla. 1st DCA
2020). We therefore REVERSE IN PART and REMAND for the trial
court to enter a written sentencing order in conformity with its oral
pronouncement. We AFFIRM the judgment and sentence in all other
respects.
RAY, WINOKUR, and TREADWELL, JJ., concur.

                _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________


Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Richard M. Bracey, III,
Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Julian E. Markham, III,
Tallahassee, for Appellee.




                              2