CHERYL ERIN FERGUSON, 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.
Ferguson challenged the summary denial of her motion to clarify her sentence, claiming the written sentencing documents did not reflect the concurrent sentences pronounced orally by the trial court. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that discrepancies between oral pronouncements and written sentences must be corrected and that the trial court failed to properly address Ferguson's claims.
A motion alleging that written sentences do not comport with the trial court's oral pronouncement is cognizable under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), and when such a discrepancy exists, the written sentencing documents must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement. The trial court did not properly address Ferguson's claim and must do so on remand.
[1] A motion to clarify sentence alleging a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and the written sentence is cognizable under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a…
[2] When a discrepancy exists between the oral pronouncement of a sentence and the written sentencing documents, the written documents must be corrected to conform to the ora…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“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."”
Establishes the core legal principle that written sentences must be corrected when they conflict with the trial court's oral pronouncement.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFerguson received sentences in two trial court cases (CF96-06254 and CF96-04989). According to Ferguson's motion, the trial court orally pronounced th…
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 Correction Of Illegal Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges the summary denial of her motion to clarify sentence. Appellant alleged in her motion that, according to the trial court’s oral pronouncement, the sentences imposed in trial court case number CF96-06254 were to be served concurrently with the sentences imposed in trial court case number CF96-04989. She further alleged that she is, in actuality, serving the sentences in the two cases consecutively to each other. The trial court’s order stated that the written sentences in CF96-06254 do not reflect that they are to be served concurrently with the sentences imposed in any other case and that “the presumption is that [appellant’s] sentences are consecutive.”
Appellant’s motion was inartfully drafted but is akin to a claim-that the written sentence does not comport with the oral pronouncement. Such a claim is cognizable in a motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). See Dawson/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 does not comport with the oral pronouncement but merely reviewed the written sentence. On remand, the trial court shall consider this claim. The trial court shall also consider appellant’s claim that she did not receive the proper credit in this case for the time she spent incarcerated prior to her sentencing.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
NORTHCUTT, A.C.J., and SALCINES and STRINGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 957 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2007)…the order denying relief and directed the trial court to attach 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 essent…
-
Taylor v. State, 821 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…licted with the written order of probation. The State also concedes error on this claim. Because the oral pronouncement controls, the probation order must be modified to reflect a lien in the amount of $700 as opposed to $750. See Ferguson v. State, 778 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). On remand, Taylor shall be allowed to file an objection to the public defender lien within thirty days. If he does so, the lien must be stricken but may be reimposed based on the trial court’s findings after a fee hearing. See Ri…
-
Hurd v. State, 807 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…1996, and more than two years have elapsed. We reject the State’s argument on this point. Where a sentencing order fails to carry out the terms of a pleg bargain, the matter can be treated as a motion to correct illegal sentence. Ferguson v. State, 778 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). We therefore treat the defendant’s Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion as a motion brought under Rule 3.800(a). For the reasons stated, we reverse the trial court order in part and remand for modification of sentence…
Previewing 3 of 5 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)
- Williams v. State, 744 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)