CORNELIUS SELLERS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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 court held that the trial court should reexamine the records to determine if the defendant's claim of erroneous convictions is conclusively refuted.
The defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated battery, with other charges dropped, but court and DOC records incorrectly show three convictions. The defe…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.800(A) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Cornelius Sellers appeals the summary denial of his “motion to correct sentence to conform to verbal pronouncement.” Although the motion raises, at most, scrivener error, we believe it was properly brought under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). See, e.g., Brown v. State, 566 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
Sellers states that in 1982 he was charged with three separate offenses. He entered a plea to aggravated battery, in return for which the remaining charges were dropped. However, records from both circuit court and the Department of Corrections continue to show three convictions. The trial court’s order fails to refute these allegations.
After remand the trial court should reexamine the files and records and determine whether anything therein conclusively refutes Sellers’s claim. If Sellers’s court documents erroneously reflect surplus convictions, those documents should be corrected. However, if it appears instead that Sellers is simply mistaken about what he pled to, he is not entitled to relief. Such a claim more properly would be brought under rule 3.850, and in this instance would be barred by the two-year limitations period imposed by that rule.
Reversed.
SCHOONOVER, C.J., and DANAHY and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cynthia Ann Dawson/Knapp v. State, 698 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…86-14764 reflecting the May 18, 1992, sentencing. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to consider the merits of the contention raised in Knapp’s motion. See Williams v. State, 676 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Sellers v. State, 591 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). If the trial court determines that it is without merit, it must attach those portions of the record that refute Knapp’s claim of failure to follow the trial court’s oral sentencing pronouncement. FRANK, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J…1 / 2
-
Higginbotham v. State, 659 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…entence filed pursuant to rule 8.800(a) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. [*462] On appeal, Higginbotham contends that the trial court’s oral pronouncement does not conform with the written sentence. We have jurisdiction. Sellers v. State, 591 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); see also White v. State, 624 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). On the face of the record, a discrepancy exists between the oral pronouncement and the written sentence. In the context of the entire plea and sentencing hearing, it a…
-
Williams v. State, 676 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…[*12] PER CURIAM. Derrick Tyrone Williams appeals the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We have jurisdiction. See Sellers v. State, 591 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). We affirm the denial of Williams’ claim regarding consecutive minimum mandatory sentences. However, the trial court failed to address Williams’ claim that his sentences do not conform to the oral pronouncement at sentencing. Acco…
Authorities Cited
- Surapo S. Sorakrai v. State, 566 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)