JOHNNY EDWARD SIMON, 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.
The court held that the trial court erred in summarily denying the motion to correct an illegal sentence regarding the habitual offender status, as the oral pronouncement did not match the written sentence.
Johnny Edward Simon appealed the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing the court did not orally pronounce him a habitua…
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 Oral Pronouncement Vs. Written Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Johnny Edward Simon appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse the trial court as to Simon’s claim that the court did not orally pronounce him to be a habitual offender in case number CF9N4339, and affirm in all other respects.
As the transcript attached to the trial court’s order shows, Simon is correct that the court did not orally sentence him as a habitual offender in case number CF91-4339. Had the trial court attached to its order a copy of the judgment and sentence demonstrating that Simon was given the same sentence in writing as was orally pronounced, we would affirm. See McDaniel v. State, 751 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). However, nothing in the attachments to the order demonstrates that the written judgment and sentence in case number CF91-4339 does not mistakenly reflect a habitual offender sentence.
Apparently, the trial court did not attach the written sentence to its order because it found that the claim was procedurally barred. The trial court relied on the fact that this issue was identified by trial counsel in the statement of judicial acts to be reviewed on appeal. This document alone does not conclusively demonstrate that the issue was addressed on appeal.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
THREADGILL, A.C.J., and GREEN and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.