JERRY WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.800(A) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Jerry Williams appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. Williams alleges that his sentences do not conform to the oral pronouncement made at sentencing. Such a claim is cognizable in a rule 3.800 proceeding. See Dawson/Knapp v. State, 698 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). The trial court did not attach any record documents which refute Williams’ claim. Therefore, we reverse and remand. On remand the trial court shall review the record and determine whether there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and written sentences. If there is, the written sentencing documents shall be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement. See, e.g., Brammer v. State, 554 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (holding that where there is a discrepancy between the written sentence and the oral pronouncement of sentence, the latter prevails). If the trial court determines that there is no discrepancy and again denies Williams’ claim, it shall attach those portions of the record which refute Williams’ claim.
Reversed and remanded.
PATTERSON, C.J., and PARKER and CASANUEVA, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Guerra v. State, 927 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…that the trial court awarded in its oral pronouncement of sentence. Such claim is cognizable under rule 3.800(a). Hunter v. State, 846 So. 2d 1227, 1228 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Watts v. State, 790 So. 2d 1175, 1176 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Williams v. State, 744 So. 2d 1156, 1156 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). If a discrepancy exists between the written sentence and the oral pronouncement, the written sentence must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement. Ashley v. State, 850 So. 2d 1265, 1268 (Fla.2003). In denying G…
-
Ferguson v. State, 778 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…son/Knapp v. State, 698 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). If there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and the written sentences, “the written sentencing documents shall be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement.” Williams v. State, 744 So. 2d 1156, 1156 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). The trial court did not address appellant’s claim that the written sentence [*388] does not comport with the oral pronouncement but merely reviewed the written sentence. On remand, the trial court shall consider this claim.…
-
Randall v. State, 842 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…and sentencing hearing, it appears that the discrepancy is the result of a scrivener’s error. Accordingly, the case is remanded for the trial court to correct the written sentencing documents to conform to the oral pronouncement. Williams v. State, 744 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Randall need not be present for the correction of the sentencing documents. Affirmed with directions. WHATLEY and NORTHCUTT, JJ., Concur.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cynthia Ann Dawson/Knapp v. State, 698 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Brammer v. State, 554 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)