RAHEEM MORRIS
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court reviewed a trial court's denial of a motion to correct a sentencing error. The court affirmed in part and vacated in part, agreeing that the written sentence did not conform to the oral pronouncement and a prior appellate decision.
Yes, the written sentence was erroneous. The oral pronouncement controls over the written sentence when there is a discrepancy, and the defendant was entitled to the same jail credit on all counts due to concurrent sentencing.
[1] When a written sentence is inconsistent with the oral pronouncement of sentence, the oral pronouncement controls and the written sentence must be vacated and corrected to…
[2] In a concurrent sentence, a defendant is entitled to the same jail credit on each count, not credit limited to a single count.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the written portion of the sentence is erroneous for failing to comport with the oral pronouncement and with Morris I”
Establishes the primary reason for the appellate court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court orally pronounced a sentence of thirty years per count, to run concurrently, with all jail credit to which the defendant was entitled.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rule 3.800(B)(2) Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Raheem Morris raises three issues in this appeal of the trial court’s denial of his “Motion to Correct Sentencing Error Under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2);” the latter issues have been previously addressed by this Court in Morris v. State, 246 So. 3d 514 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (Morris I) ; therefore, we affirm on those issues without further comment. We agree with Mr. Morris’ first argument—that the written portion of the sentence is erroneous for failing to comport with the oral pronouncement and with Morris I—and vacate that portion of the sentence. During Mr. Morris’s resentencing hearing, the trial court announced that he would receive all jail credit to which he was entitled and sentenced him to thirty years per count, to run
concurrently.
However, the written sentence then provided for 462 days of credit “as to Count 2 only.” As the State concedes, Mr. Morris’s concurrent sentencing in this case means that he is entitled to the same credit on Count one as he is on Count two. See Daniels v. State, 491 So. 2d 543, 545 (Fla. 1986).
Additionally, the written sentence incorrectly lists Count one as Armed Carjacking contrary to section 812.133(2)(a), Florida Statutes; as determined in Morris I, Mr. Morris could only be convicted of simple Carjacking contrary to section 812.133(2)(b), Florida Statutes. The issue of an alleged discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of a sentence and the written portion of said sentence is one cognizable in a rule 3.800 motion. Sullivan v. State, 971 So. 2d 269, 270 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). In such circumstances, the oral pronouncement of a sentence controls over the written sentence form. Id.; Marshall v. State, 652 So. 2d 974, 974-75 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (vacating written portion of a sentence for inconsistency with oral pronouncement and remanding case for entry of a corrected version).
Thus, we agree with the parties that the trial court’s denial of the Motion to Correct Sentencing Error was erroneous.* We vacate the written portion of the sentence to the extent that it is inconsistent with the oral pronouncement and remand the case for entry of a corrected version which conforms with the trial court’s oral pronouncement and with Morris I. AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. WOLF, BILBREY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Daniels v. State, 491 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 1986)
- Marshall v. State, 652 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Sullivan v. State, 971 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- Morris v. State, 246 So. 3d 514 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)