QORNEILOUS MARQUEL CAMPBELL
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 affirmed the denial of a motion to suppress evidence but reversed and remanded the case to correct a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of a probation condition and the written order. The court emphasized that oral pronouncements prevail over conflicting written orders.
The appellate court held that the trial court correctly denied the motion to suppress. However, it held that the written probation order must be corrected to reflect the oral pronouncement that warrantless searches require reasonable suspicion.
[1] A conflict between a trial court's oral pronouncement of a sentence and its written order of probation is resolved in favor of the oral pronouncement.
[2] A motion to correct sentencing error under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) is deemed denied if the trial court fails to rule on it within sixty days.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Finding no error in the trial court’s denial of Campbell’s motion to suppress certain evidence, we affirm the judgment and sentence without further comment.”
Establishes the court's decision on the motion to suppress.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceQorneilous Marquel Campbell pleaded no contest to drug charges and appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. During the appeal, he also …
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 Motion To Correct Sentencing Error cases and more on FLexlaw
WOZNIAK, J.
Qorneilous Marquel Campbell appeals the judgment and sentence imposed following his no contest plea to one count each of possession of cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia.1 Finding no error in the trial court’s denial of Campbell’s motion to suppress certain evidence, we affirm the judgment and sentence without further comment. However, as conceded by the State, one issue of merit arose during the pendency of this appeal that requires remand for correction. While this appeal was pending, Campbell filed a motion to correct sentencing error under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). In it, he pointed out that the trial court had orally announced at sentencing that, as a condition of probation, Campbell would be subject to warrantless searches by a law enforcement officer only “if that officer has reasonable suspicion to search,” but the special condition of probation contained in the written probation order makes no mention of the reasonable suspicion requirement. He correctly contended that the conflict between the trial court’s oral pronouncement and its written order of probation should be resolved in favor of the oral pronouncement. See Ashley v. State, 850 So. 2d 1265, 1268 (Fla. 2003) (“[W]hen conflict arises between the written sentence and the oral pronouncement, the oral pronouncement prevails.”). However, because Campbell’s motion was not ruled on within sixty days, it was deemed denied. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2)(B) (“[I]f the trial court does not file an order ruling on the motion within 60 days, the motion shall be deemed denied.”). The denial cannot stand. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions for the trial court to conform the written order of probation with its oral pronouncement. AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED with instructions.
MIZE and BROWNLEE, JJ., concur. Howard L. “Rex” Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Caroline Joan S. Picart, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and J. Wade Stidham, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.