Joseph v. State

In this direct criminal appeal, appellant raises two issues: whether it was error to deny his motion to suppress evidence, because the state failed to establish that his consent to search was given intelligently and voluntarily; and whether the written sentence imposed should be corrected because it is inconsistent with the trial court’s oral sentence. We conclude that the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to suppress. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction. However, we agree that the written sentence is inconsistent with the trial court’s oral sentence, because it omits…