JACK L. WATTS, 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.
Watts appealed the denial of his motion to correct an allegedly illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), claiming that his sentences in two cases were ordered to run concurrently but are actually running consecutively. The trial court denied the motion without reviewing the sentencing transcript or oral pronouncement, requiring reversal and remand for proper review of any discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and written sentencing order.
The trial court erred by failing to review whether the written sentencing order comported with the oral pronouncement at resentencing. A claim that the written sentence does not conform to the oral pronouncement is cognizable under Rule 3.800(a), and the trial court must review the full record and correct any discrepancies accordingly.
[1] A claim that a written sentence does not comport with the oral pronouncement is cognizable in a motion to correct illegal sentence.
[2] When denying a motion to correct illegal sentence based on a discrepancy between oral pronouncement and written sentence, the trial court must attach portions of the reco…
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“Watts' motion was inartfully drafted but made an allegation that the written sentence does not comport with the oral pronouncement. Such a claim is cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) proceeding.”
Establishes that despite deficient drafting, a claim comparing written to oral pronouncement can be raised under Rule 3.800(a).
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1994, Watts was resentenced in his Hillsborough County case (90-18964), with the trial court allegedly ordering the sentences to run concurrently w…
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 Motion To Correct Illegal Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
SILBERMAN, Judge.
Jack L. Watts appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Watts alleged that upon resentencing in 1994, the trial court ordered the sentences in his Hillsborough County case (case number 90-18964) to run concurrently with the sentences in his Pinellas County case (case number 90-19252). Watts further claimed that he is, in fact, serving the sentences in the two cases consecutively to each other. The trial court denied the motion because the resentencing order was silent as to the Pinellas County case. The trial court attached a copy of the resentencing order to the order denying the motion to correct sentence; however, the trial court failed to attach a copy of the sentencing transcript or copies of any of the sentencing documents. As a result, we must reverse.
Watts’ motion was inartfully drafted but made an allegation that the written sentence does not comport with the oral pronouncement. Such a claim is cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) proceeding. See Dawson/Knapp v. State, 698 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). The trial court did not review whether the written sentence conformed to the oral pronouncement but merely reviewed and attached the previous resentencing order. On remand the trial court shall review the record and determine whether there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement by the resentencing judge and the written sentencing order. If such a discrepancy exists, the written sentencing documents must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement. See Williams v. State, 744 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). If the trial court determines that there is no discrepancy and again denies Watts’ claim, it shall attach those portions of the record which conclusively refute his allegation.
Reversed and remanded.
THREADGILL, A.C.J., and GREEN, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities 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)