REGINALD L. CAMPBELL, 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 court held that written sentences must conform to the oral pronouncement of sentence.
Campbell was convicted of cocaine sale and possession and sentenced to consecutive prison terms. He filed a motion to correct his sentence, arguing th…
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
KELLY, Judge.
Reginald L. Campbell appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse and remand for correction of his written sentences.
On May 12,1994, Campbell was charged by a single information with sale of cocaine and possession of cocaine. On January 10, 1995, a jury found Campbell guilty of both counts. The trial court sentenced Campbell to five years in prison on the possession count and fifteen years in prison on the sale count. The written sentences indicate that the sentences are to run consecutively. In his motion, Campbell sought correction of his written sentences, claiming that at the sentencing hearing the trial court did not direct the sentences to run consecutively, and therefore, his sentences should run concurrently. See § 921.16(1), Fla. Stat. (1993).
The trial court denied the motion because the oral pronouncement was made in a way that suggested consecutive sentences. We disagree. It is apparent from the sentencing transcript that the trial court did not direct the sentences to 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 were not raised in his rule 3.800(a) motion. We decline to address these issues because they were not first presented to the trial court. See Adams v. State, 774 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).
Reversed and remanded.
COVINGTON and CANADY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (26 total)
-
Johnson v. State, 973 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…Mr. Johnson’s sentences was neither ambiguous nor unclear. Because the trial court did not direct otherwise, section 921.16(1) requires that Mr. Johnson’s life sentences are to be served concurrently rather than consecutively. See Campbell v. State, 884 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). The State does not argue to the contrary, and we commend the State for its candor. Conclusion For these reasons, we affirm Mr. Johnson’s judgments and each separate life sentence. We remand this case to the trial court with dir…
-
Schneider v. State, 940 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Hoover v. State, 530 So. 2d 308 (Fla.1988); Burrows v. State, 890 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), review denied, 914 So. 2d 952 (Fla.2005); Campbell v. State, 884 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Diaz v. State, 810 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Caraballo v. State, 805 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Schneider v. State, 788 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Villavicencio v. State, 719 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). Contra…
-
Silvio Andres Padilla v. State, 905 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Because the defendant did not raise this issue in his motion to correct illegal sentence below, nor in his appeal to this court, we conclude that the issue is not properly before us on rehearing. Campbell v. State, 884 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)(on an [*249] appeal of a denial of a motion to correct illegal sentence, declining to address issues that were not raised in the rule 3.800(a) motion filed with the trial court); Adams v. State, 774 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)(e…
Previewing 3 of 26 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Columbus Rickey Ashley v. State, 850 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 2003)
- Armstrong v. State, 846 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Hunter v. State, 846 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Adams v. State, 774 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)