JAMES ALLEN, 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 written sentence improperly included a habitual offender designation not present in the oral pronouncement.
The defendant was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to sell while carrying a firearm. His written sentence included a habitual offender d…
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
WHATLEY, Judge.
James Allen challenges the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). He raised two grounds in his motion. We affirm the denial of the first ground without comment, but we reverse and remand for further proceedings on the second ground.
Allen was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to sell while carrying a firearm, a first-degree felony. The written sentence reflects a sentence of forty years’ prison as a habitual offender followed by ten years’ probation. In his motion, Allen alleged that the written sentence does not conform to the oral pronouncement in that he was not orally sentenced as a habitual offender. A review of the sentencing transcript indicates that Allen’s assertion is correct.
We reverse that portion of the trial court’s order denying this claim and remand with instructions to the trial court to strike the habitual offender designation from Allen’s written sentence and to re-sentence Allen within the statutory maximum for the offense. See Simon v. State, 26 Fla. L. Weekly D409, — So. 2d —, 2001 WL 98564 (Fla. 2d DCA Feb.7, 2001).
Affirmed in part, reversed, and remanded with instructions.
PARKER, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carvello v. State, 824 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…tence, then he will be entitled to withdraw his pleas. The State can either agree to a new downward departure sentence, or withdraw from the plea agreement and appellant can proceed to trial. See Honeycutt, 805 So. 2d at 988 (citing Latiif v. State, 787 So. 2d 884 (Fla.2001)). REVERSED and REMANDED. GUNTHER, KLEIN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.…
-
Salim Kamau Latiif v. State, 794 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…to the trial court so that the State can be given the option of either proceeding to trial on the original charges or permitting Mr. Latiif to maintain his plea of guilty and be re-sentenced under the 1994 sentencing guidelines. See Latiif v. State, 787 So. 2d 884 (Fla.2001). It should be noted that, regardless of which option the State decides to pursue, Mr. Latiifs additional claim of scoresheet error will become moot because, under either scenario, he will be entitled to receive a new sentencing proceeding…
-
Kiselyk v. State, 831 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…a seventy-five-month sentence not only on the trafficking conviction, but also on the convictions for possession of LSD, hydrocodone, and alprazolam. Because the oral pronouncement of sentence controls over the written judgment, see Allen v. State, 787 So. 2d 884, 885 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), we reverse Kiselyk’s sentences and remand to the trial court with instructions to enter a written sentence that comports with its oral pronouncement. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. SILBERMAN and KELLY,…