DAVID CAMPBELL, 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.
A written sentence that does not conform to the oral pronouncement is not an illegal sentence that can be corrected under rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.
David Campbell appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing his written sentence did not conform to the oral pronouncemen…
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.
David Campbell appeals the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence. 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 was published, the Florida Supreme Court explained the scope of rule 3.800(a) in State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429, 23 Fla. L. Weekly S301 (Fla. June 11, 1998). It is our conclusion that the Man-cino decision does not require a different result.
In Mancino, the Supreme Court explained that “A sentence that patently fails to comport with statutory or constitutional limitations is by definition ‘illegal’.” Id. at S303, at 433. The rule the oral pronouncement of the sentence that controls in the event of a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and the written sentence is found in the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, not the Florida Statutes or the state or federal constitutions. Fla. R. Crim. Pro. 3.700(1). If there was an error in Campbell’s sentence, it was caused by noncompliance with a procedural rule, and therefore does not result in an “illegal sentence” under the Mancino definition. WARNER and FARMER, JJ., and GLICKSTEIN, HUGH S., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (21 total)
-
Williams v. State, 957 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2007)…ndered moot in this case so that no further proceedings are necessary. It is so ordered. LEWIS, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur. . The Fourth District relied on its earlier decision in Campbell v. State, 718 So. 2d 886 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Williams, 913 So. 2d at 1239. The Fourth District's holding in Campbell is no different than its reasoning in Williams— the law that provides primacy to the oral pronouncement cannot be used to claim that a sentence is illegal.…
-
Rinderer v. State, 857 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…d discrepancy between a written sentencing order and the court’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…
-
Antoine Museau v. State, 953 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…ce. We affirm all points, but note that, within his first issue, he claims a discrepancy between the written sentence and oral pronouncement. This court has held that the claim is not cognizable through a rule 3.800(a) motion. See Campbell v. State, 718 So. 2d 886 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Museau’s motion was not sworn. Consequently, we affirm the denial of relief, but without prejudice to Museau seeking relief pursuant to rule 3.850, if time allows. See Moreland v. State, 944 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Wil…
Previewing 3 of 21 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1998)
- TIG Ins. Co. v. Wagner, 707 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Gardner v. State, 707 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)