KENNETH GARDNER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Illegal Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Kenneth Gardner timely appeals the denial of a motion in which he claimed that his written sentences did not conform to the oral pronouncements. Because his motion was filed more than two years after his sentence became final, if he is to obtain any relief, it must be pursuant to rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.
We affirm the trial court’s decision because the alleged error would not result in an illegal sentence. The Florida Supreme Court has limited rule 3.800(a) relief to sentences that exceed the maximum allowed by law. King v. State, 681 So. 2d 1136, 1140 (Fla.1996); Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193 (Fla.1995). The written sentences in Gardner’s case do not exceed the maximum punishments permitted for his offenses.
AFFIRMED.
DELL, FARMER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Campbell v. State, 718 So. 2d 886 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…ence. We affirm the denial of relief on all grounds and write to explain our rejection of Campbell’s claim that his written sentence is illegal because it does not conform with the oral pronouncement at his sentencing hearing. In Gardner v. State, 707 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), we held that a claim that a written sentence does not conform to the oral pronouncement cannot be raised in a motion to correct illegal sentence filed under rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Since that decision…
-
Rinderer v. State, 857 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…rt’s oral pronouncement of sentence is not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion. It must be alleged in a timely motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Campbell v. State, 718 So. 2d 886 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) citing Gardner v. State, 707 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). However, the instant motion was sworn and filed within two years of [*957] the mandate’s issuance in the direct appeal and thus complied with the requirements of rule 3.850. The general rule is that when there is a discrepancy…
-
Scanes v. State, 876 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…ntence was “unconstitutionally increased” after it was imposed. We also distinguish this claim from those asserting a discrepancy between the oral and written sentence, which must be alleged in a timely motion under rule 3.850. See Gardner v. State, 707 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1995)
- King v. State, 681 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 1996)