ERIC A. HUNTER, 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 appellate court held that the trial court erred in denying the motion to correct an illegal sentence without considering it under the proper rule.
The defendant filed a motion alleging his written sentence did not reflect the jail credit awarded at the sentencing hearing. The trial court treated …
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 Written Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1228] VILLANTI, Judge.
Eric A. Hunter appeals the denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
In his motion, Hunter alleged that his written sentence does not reflect the amount of jail credit awarded to him by the trial court at the sentencing hearing. If such a discrepancy exists, Hunter’s written sentence must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement. See, e.g., Watts v. State, 790 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Such a claim is cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion. See id. at 1176. However, Hunter styled his motion as one seeking clarification of his sentence filed pursuant to rule 3.800(b), and the trial court treated it as such and denied it without any explanation. Because Hunter raised a claim of illegal sentence, the trial court should have considered the motion as one filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a). See Gill v. State, 829 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). In the alternative, because the motion is sworn and timely filed, the trial court could consider it under rule 3.850. Id. at 300.
We note that Hunter filed an earlier rule 3.800(a) motion seeking jail credit in the present cases. In its order, the trial court partially granted the motion but did not address the specific issue raised herein. Therefore, Hunter’s present motion should not be deemed successive. See Sanchez v. State, 745 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to consider Hunter’s claim pursuant to rule 3.800(a).
Reversed and remanded.
DAVIS and COVINGTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Campbell v. State, 884 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…run consecutively. Therefore, the prison sentences shall run concurrently, and the written sentences shall be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement of sentence. See § 921.16(1); Ashley v. State, 850 So. 2d 1265 (Fla.2003); Hunter v. State, 846 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to correct the written sentences to reflect that the prison sentences are to run concurrently. We note that in his initial brief on appeal, Campbell raised arguments that w…
-
Guerra v. State, 927 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…ment of sentence. Specifically, Guerra alleges the written sentencing order does not reflect the amount of jail credit that the trial court awarded in its oral pronouncement of sentence. Such claim is cognizable under rule 3.800(a). Hunter v. State, 846 So. 2d 1227, 1228 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Watts v. State, 790 So. 2d 1175, 1176 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Williams v. State, 744 So. 2d 1156, 1156 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). If a discrepancy exists between the written sentence and the oral pronouncement, the written sentence mu…
-
Canty v. State, 884 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…he trial court has completed its responsibility, and any challenge Canty may have regarding the application of prison credit to his sentence should first be raised through the appropriate administrative remedies with the DOC. See Armstrong v. State, 846 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). However, if Canty entered into a plea agreement upon violation of probation for a particular prison sentence and the DOC’s forfeiture of gain time has resulted in a longer sentence than that agreed upon, Canty may be entitled to…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gill v. State, 829 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Arline v. State, 790 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Sanchez v. State, 745 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)