ANTHONY WILLIAMS, 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.
Anthony Williams appealed the summary denial of his post-conviction motion challenging whether the trial court properly pronounced his habitual violent felony offender status and mandatory minimum sentences at sentencing. The appellate court reversed as to ground B, finding a potential discrepancy between oral pronouncement and written sentence that warranted an evidentiary hearing, while affirming the other two grounds.
The court reversed as to ground B, holding that a written sentence may be challenged as not conforming to the oral pronouncement in a rule 3.850 proceeding. The matter was remanded for an evidentiary hearing or attachment of record portions that could conclusively rebut the claim.
[1] A written sentence may be challenged as not conforming to the oral pronouncement in a post-conviction relief proceeding.
[2] A defendant may seek post-conviction relief when the trial court fails to orally declare the defendant to be a habitual violent felony offender.
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“A written sentence may be challenged as not conforming to the oral one in a rule 3.850 proceeding.”
Establishes the legal principle that sentencing discrepancies between oral and written pronouncements can be raised in post-conviction motions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was convicted by jury of burglary of an unoccupied dwelling and grand theft. He was sentenced to thirty years on the burglary count as a viol…
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 Rules Of Criminal Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Anthony Williams (Appellant) appeals from an order summarily denying the first three grounds of his motion for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. We reverse as to ground “B.” We affirm as to the other two grounds without further discussion.
Following a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty as charged of burglary of an unoccupied dwelling and grand theft. He was sentenced on the burglary count to thirty years as a violent career criminal, with a thirty-year mandatory minimum, and on the theft count to ten years as a habitual violent felony offender, with a ten-year mandatory minimum.1
In ground B of his motion, Appellant alleged that the court failed to orally declare him to be a habitual violent felony offender as to the second count, or pronounce mandatory minimum terms at the time of sentencing on either count. It is true that the transcript of Appellant’s sentencing hearing, which the state attached to its response below in connection with the first ground, does not include an oral pronouncement of a mandatory minimum for either count. With respect to the second count, the trial court orally sentenced Appellant as a habitual felony offender, but not as a habitual violent felony offender. A written sentence may be challenged as not conforming to the oral one in a rule 3.850 proceeding. See James v. State, 763 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), rev. denied, 786 So. 2d 1186 (Fla.2001); Dukes v. State, 737 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Ricks v. State, 725 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), cause dismissed, SC94,927, — So. 2d - (Fla. Feb. 25, 1999), and rev. denied, 732 So. 2d 328 (Fla.1999); Hampton v. State, 711 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).
We reverse the order on appeal to the extent it denied ground B and remand for an evidentiary hearing or the attachment of portions of the record that conclusively rebut this ground. In all other respects, we affirm.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
GUNTHER, STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur. . The order on appeal, granting Appellant's motion in part, reduced the ten-year mandatory minimum to five years.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tauric Griggs v. State, 821 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…ry hearing. Finally, Appellant claimed that his written sentencing order, which imposes a mandatory minimum life sentence for armed robbery, doesn’t comport with the oral pronouncement. This is a cognizable rule 3.850 claim. See Williams v. State, 789 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). We accept the State’s concession of error, as section 775.084(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1997), doesn’t provide for a mandatory minimum sentence of life for a first degree felony. If the trial court denies the ineffective assist…
Authorities Cited
- Ricks v. State, 725 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Skinner v. State, 711 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Dukes v. State, 737 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Denmark v. Michael, 737 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- A.J. James v. State, 763 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)