Will update as more news comes in….
ORLANDO, Fla. — An appeals court Tuesday upheld Judge Belvin Perry’s ruling that Casey Anthony must serve a year of probation from her check fraud case.
The 5th District Court of Appeal ruled that Anthony was aware of a clerical error that led to mix-up.
“(Anthony) may not, under these circumstances, take advantage of the administrative error of the Department of Corrections,” the order said.
DATE: August 23, 2011
BY ORDER OF THE COURT:
ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Prohibition is denied.
The trial court orally pronounced at the petitioner’s sentencing hearing, held on January 25, 2010, that the petitioner’s probation would not commence until she was released from incarceration on pending charges in another case. Both the petitioner and the respondent agree that the oral pronouncement of the trial judge takes precedence over any written order that follows. See Williams v. State, 957 So. 2d 600, 603 (Fla. 2003). The trial court retained jurisdiction to conform the written order of probation to the oral pronouncement, see Dumwright v. State, 572 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), and the Department of Corrections did not have the authority to countermand the trial court’s sentencing order. See S 948.03(1), Fla. Stat. (2010) (”The court shall determine the terms and conditions of probation.”); Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.790(a) (“The court shall specify the length of time during which the defendant is to be supervised.”).
Further, the trial court’s actions are not barred by the petitioner’s constitutional claim of double jeopardy, as the petitioner has not legally commenced her probationary sentence. The petitioner and her lawyers were well aware that her probationary placement was not to begin until her release from confinement. The petitioner may not, under these circumstances, take advantage of the administrative error of the Department of Corrections. “The Constitution does not require that sentencing should be a game in which a wrong move by the judge [or the Department] means immunity for the prisoner.” Bozza v. United States, 330 U.S. 160, 166-67 (1947).