Rutilo Medina Hernandez appealed his total sentence of 156 months' imprisonment for a series of drug trafficking and firearm offenses. The specific dispute arose from the district court's handling of the counts involving the use of a communication facility to commit a drug trafficking crime. During the sentencing hearing, the judge initially orally pronounced a 96-month sentence for these specific counts. However, the statutory maximum for this offense under 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) is only 48 months. The government moved for summary affirmance, arguing that the court had clarified the oral sentence to 48 months and that, regardless of the oral error, the final written judgment correctly imposed the lawful 48-month term.
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the legality of the sentence de novo, noting that a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum constitutes an illegal sentence. Because Hernandez failed to object to the initial oral pronouncement in the district court, the court applied the plain error standard. Under this standard, an error must be plain, affect substantial rights, and seriously affect the fairness of the proceedings. The court acknowledged the general rule that an oral sentence controls over a written judgment when there is a discrepancy. However, the court applied a longstanding exception: when an oral pronouncement is contrary to law, the written judgment controls. Since the initial oral pronouncement of 96 months violated the statutory cap of 48 months set by 21 U.S.C. § 843(b), it was unlawful. Consequently, the lawful written judgment, which imposed the correct 48-month sentence, prevailed. The court found the government's position clearly right as a matter of law, warranting summary affirmance.
The conviction and sentence stand as entered in the written judgment. This ruling reinforces the principle that courts cannot impose sentences that exceed statutory limits, even if initially stated orally. It clarifies that when a discrepancy exists between an oral pronouncement and a written judgment, the written document controls if the oral statement is legally invalid. There are no remand instructions as the case was disposed of summarily.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download