BOBBY L. ARRINGTON, 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.
Appellant's motion to correct an illegal sentence was affirmed as to count two but remanded as to count three, where the written sentence incorrectly designated him as a habitual offender contrary to the trial court's oral pronouncement.
A trial court's written sentence must conform to its oral pronouncement at sentencing, and where it does not, the written sentence must be amended to reflect what was actually pronounced.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) is cognizable when the written sentence fails to conform to the trial court's or…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceArrington was sentenced in circuit court case number 93-3230 on multiple counts. The written sentence for count two designated him as a habitual offen…
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
CASANUEVA, Judge.
Bobby L. Arrington challenges the order of the trial court denying his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm.
In his motion Arrington alleges that the written sentence in count two of circuit court case number 93-3230 fails to comport to the trial court’s oral pronouncement. Specifically, Arrington alleges that the written sentence indicates that he was sentenced to prison as a habitual offender, whereas the transcript of the sentencing hearing reflects that the trial court did not sentence him as a habitual offender. This claim is cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion. See Brooks v. State, 768 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). However, upon review of the transcript of the sentencing hearing, we conclude that the trial court orally sentenced Arrington as a habitual offender in count two, and we affirm the trial court’s denial of this claim. However, with regard to the sentence in count three, the trial court did not orally sentence Ar-rington as a habitual offender, and we remand to the trial court to amend the written sentence in that count to reflect a nonhabitual offender designation.
Affirmed and remanded for further proceedings.
SALCINES and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allison v. State, 825 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…ly weapon; however the written sentence reflects that these sanctions were imposed for count two, aggravated battery. On remand, the written sentence shall be corrected so that it comports with the court’s oral pronouncement. See Arrington v. State, 805 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), dismissed, Brooks v. State, 768 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Afirmed. BLUE, C.J., and STRINGER and DAVIS, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Errol D. Brooks v. State, 768 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)