BRUCE CUNNINGHAM, 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.
Bruce Cunningham appealed the denial of his motion to correct a sentencing error, challenging the trial court's failure to properly follow the appellate court's mandate on remand regarding a discrepancy between the written sentencing order (30 years) and the oral pronouncement (18 years), and the failure to address his habitual offender sentencing complaint.
The trial court did not follow the appellate mandate because it failed to ensure that Cunningham, his trial counsel, and the original court reporter were present at the remand hearing. The matter must be remanded for a proper evidentiary hearing with all necessary parties present, and the trial court must address the habitual offender sentencing complaint that was not addressed in the original order denying the motion.
[1] A trial court must follow the specific mandate of an appellate court on remand.
[2] An evidentiary hearing to resolve a discrepancy between a written sentencing order and an oral pronouncement must include the defendant, their trial counsel, and the orig…
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“this court directed the trial court to conduct a hearing and to make a factual determination to resolve the conflict between the written sentencing order imposing thirty years' imprisonment and the transcribed oral pronouncement imposing eighteen years' imprisonment”
Establishes what the appellate mandate required the trial court to do on remand
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCunningham had a prior direct appeal of his sentence in which the appellate court found a conflict between the written sentencing order imposing thirt…
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 Order cases and more on FLexlaw
SALCINES, Judge.
Bruce Cunningham appeals the denial of his motion to correct a sentencing error filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). In the motion Cunningham raised two issues: (1) the trial court failed to follow this court’s mandate on remand from the direct appeal of his sentence, and (2) the trial court failed to follow proper formalities when it imposed the habitual offender sentence.
We reverse and remand for further proceedings. In Cunningham v. State, 818 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), this court directed the trial court to conduct a hearing and to make a factual determination to resolve the conflict between the written sentencing order imposing thirty years’ imprisonment and the transcribed oral pronouncement imposing eighteen years’ imprisonment. On remand, the trial court did conduct a hearing.
However, Cunningham, his trial counsel who attended the original sentencing, and the court reporter who had transcribed the original sentencing hearing were not present. The prosecutor was present, and the trial judge speculated that he had pronounced a thirty-year sentence and “[sjomehow that got morphed [in] the written record by the Court Reporter, as an 18-year sentence.... ” The prosecutor agreed that there was never a discussion about an eighteen-year sentence, and the matter was concluded.
The trial court issued a written order stating that the original judgment and sentence were to stand as originally filed. The thirty-year sentence was reaffirmed.
The State has conceded and we agree that the trial court did not follow this court’s mandate at the hearing on remand. Once again this matter must be remanded to the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to resolve the discrepancy between the written sentence and the oral pronouncement made at the sentencing hearing. We direct that the court ensure that Cunningham, his trial counsel who was present at the sentencing hearing (Bruce Kaufmann), and the original court reporter (Deborah M. Williams) are present at the new hearing.
In the motion to correct sentencing error, Cunningham raised a second issue that was not addressed by the trial court in the order denying the motion. Accordingly, on remand, the trial court shall address Cunningham’s complaint regarding the habitual offender sentence.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
WHATLEY and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cunningham v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (M.D. Fla. 2023)…e, 818 So. 2d 685, 686 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). On remand, the trial court held a hearing but did not receive testimony from Cunningham, his trial counsel, or the “court reporter who had transcribed the original sentencing hearing.” Cunningham v. State, 873 So. 2d 627, 628 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Nevertheless, the trial court “reaffirmed” the thirty-year sentence, “stating that the original judgment and sentence were to stand as originally filed.” Id. The state appellate court subsequently remanded the c…
Authorities Cited
- Cunningham v. State, 818 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)