OLIVER FREEMAN, 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.
Court reversed denial of motion to correct illegal sentence, holding that a "no work release" condition not orally pronounced at sentencing must be deleted from the written order because work release restrictions constitute sentence modifications requiring oral pronouncement.
A written sentencing order containing a "no work release" condition not orally pronounced at sentencing must be corrected by deleting that provision because such restrictions modify the sentence and must be orally pronounced.
[1] A written sentencing order provision restricting work release participation must be deleted if not orally pronounced at sentencing, as such restrictions modify the senten…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFreeman filed a motion to correct his sentence, alleging that a "no work release" condition was illegally included in the written sentencing order des…
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 Written Sentencing Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In his Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Proee-dure 3.800(a), appellant alleged a “no work release” condition, not orally pronounced at sentencing, was illegally included in the written sentencing order. The issue appellant raises is more appropriately considered in a proceeding pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850; however, “[t]he courts have the authority to treat prisoner petitions as if the proper remedy were sought if it would be in the interest of justice to do so.” Hall v. State, 643 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (opinion on rehearing), citing Fenter v. State, 632 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
The trial court apparently treated appellant’s motion as though it had been filed pursuant to rule 3.850, and inasmuch as the motion appears to meet the requirements of that rule, was made under oath, and was timely filed, we review it as such.
In its order denying appellant’s motion, the trial court stated that the “no work release” order “did not amount to an imposition of a new or greater punishment at variance with the court’s oral pronouncement,” in that work release involves a trust or privilege rather than a punishment. Recently, this court determined that a written sentencing order which included a provision preventing participation in work release did not conform to the orally pronounced sentence, and that provision had to be deleted. Davidson v. State, 641 So. 2d 930 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Accordingly, the order under review is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with Davidson.
ERVIN, JOANOS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Farmer v. State, 670 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…offenses. The written sentence, however, reflects 30-year sentences for the burglary charges in circuit court Case Nos. 90-5264 and 91-268 as well. The trial court’s oral pronouncement controls over the subsequent written sentence. Freeman v. State, 644 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Upon remand, there is no necessity for Farmer to be present for correction of the judgment and sentence, as this will merely be a ministerial act. Bridgewater v. State, 668 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (no new sentencing hear…
-
Dublin v. State, 681 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…MED; REMANDED without prejudice to defendant to refile amended rule 3.850 motion. COBB and HARRIS, JJ., concur. . See, e.g., Brown v. State, 664 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Matthews v. State, 664 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Freeman v. State, 644 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Hall v. State, 643 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).…
-
Claudio v. Shoar, 917 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…on, or participate in an educational or vocational training program, while continuing as an inmate of the county facility in which he shall be confined except during the period of his authorized release. (Emphasis added); see also Freeman v. State, 644 So. 2d 356, 356 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (holding “work release involves a trust or privilege”). Because participation in a work release program is a privilege, not a right, it follows that mandamus is not an available remedy. AFFIRMED. PLEUS, C.J., and GRIFFIN,…
Authorities Cited
- Hall v. State, 643 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Fenter v. State, 632 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Primm v. State, 641 So. 2d 930 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Stong v. Margery Stong, 641 So. 2d 930 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)