BILLY WILLIAMS, 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.
Challenges to credit for time served are not cognizable in a motion to correct sentence under rule 3.800(a).
Williams was sentenced to prison followed by probation. After violating probation, he received a new prison sentence and sought credit for time previo…
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 Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Judge.
Billy Williams appeals the denial of his motion to correct sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The trial court denied the motion, finding that challenges to the appropriate credit for time served are not cognizable in such a proceeding. We affirm.
Williams was sentenced to prison followed by probation. After he violated probation, the court imposed a new prison sentence, and the issue he raised in his motion concerns credit for time spent earlier in prison on this newly imposed sentence. The trial court denied relief, reasoning that attacks on a trial court’s determination of credit for time served may only be raised collaterally in a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, citing Ramos v. State, 697 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), and Brown v. State, 700 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Reliance on the foregoing cases, however, overlooks Swyck v. State, 693 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 2d DCA), review granted, 699 So. 2d 1376 (Fla.1997), in which this court acknowledged conflict with three district courts of appeal adhering to the results in the cases cited by the trial judge.
Williams suggests in his motion that the sentencing court orally granted him credit for his earlier prison time but failed to enter a written order to that effect. The motion demands that the written order conform to the oral pronouncement. See Garcia v. State, 666 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). A determination of the substance of the oral pronouncement will generally not be of record, but will require the transcription of the proceedings. Accordingly, the trial court correctly determined that this matter may only be resolved by resort to rule 3.850. See Thomas v. State, 611 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).
Affirmed.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and FULMER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 957 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2007)…h the portions of the sentencing proceedings record that would conclusively refute the movant’s claim should the court determine there was no discrepancy. Id.; see also Ferguson v. State, 778 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). But see Williams v. State, 705 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (claims of discrepancy between oral and written sentence should be brought under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850). [*603] In Melton, the Third District essentially-mandated a similar procedure requiring the trial court to…
-
Jackson v. State, 803 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…e, review of “the record,” including transcripts of bond hearing and sentencing hearing, was inconclusive as to the claim, the denial of which was affirmed without prejudice to file a properly sworn, timely rule 3.850 motion); cf. Williams v. State, 705 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (in rule 3.800(a) claim seeking credit for time spent earlier in prison and relying on trial court’s alleged oral pronouncements, panel concluded a determination of substance of verbal pronouncement generally will not be of record…
Authorities Cited
- Thomas v. State, 611 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Swyck v. State, 693 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Ramos v. State, 697 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Brown v. State, 700 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Garcia v. State, 666 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)