RYAN EVANS, 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 unpreserved sentencing errors cannot be raised on direct appeal.
Appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine and appealed based on discrepancies between the oral pronouncement of sentence, the written sentence,…
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 Rule 3.800(B) Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Ryan Evans appeals his conviction and sentence for possession of cocaine. Appellant argues that there is a discrepancy between the trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence, written sentence, and order on probation.1 The record supports appellant’s contention, and the State concedes that there is a discrepancy.
At his sentencing hearing, the trial court stated that appellant was sentenced to eight months in the county jail followed by eight months of substance abuse probation. The written judgment and sentence states that the trial court imposed an eighteen month prison term to be followed by eight months of probation. The order of probation states that appellant is to be on probation for eighteen months. While such discrepancies clearly constitute a sentencing error, see Hudson v. State, 772 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), appellant did not preserve the issue below with either a contemporaneous objection or Rule 3.800(b) motion.2
Therefore, we may not address this sentencing error on direct appeal. See Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89, 98 (Fla.2000) (holding that unpreserved sentencing errors cannot be raised on appeal after the enactment of the 1999 amendments to Rule 3.800(b)); Jones v. State, 876 So. 2d 642, 645 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (stating that the court could not address the unpreserved sentencing error, but that this determination was “without prejudice to the Appellant’s right to seek collateral relief’). Accordingly, the judgment and sentence below is AFFIRMED.
WEBSTER, BENTON AND POLSTON, JJ., concur. . We reject appellant's argument that the trial court reversibly erred in admitting certain evidence without further comment.
. In addition to the discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and written sentence, the apparent scrivener's error in the order on probation is an error that should have been raised in a Rule 3.800(b) motion. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800, Court Commentary, 1999 Amendments.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Elbert N. Daniels v. State, 118 So. 3d 996 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…ule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion before filing the initial brief. See Jackson, 983 So. 2d at 572 (noting that sentencing errors subject to Rule 3.800(b)(2) include written orders that deviate from the oral pronouncement); Evans v. State, 895 So. 2d 1292, 1292-93 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (holding that absent contemporaneous objection or Rule 3.800(b)(2) motion, error in non-conforming written sentence and order of probation to oral pronouncement was not preserved for direct appeal). Burney v. State, 114…1 / 2
-
Burney v. State, 114 So. 3d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…rial court’s oral pronouncement.”) (citation omitted). However, as the state points out, the defendant did not preserve this argument with either a contemporaneous objection or a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 motion. See Evans v. State, 895 So. 2d 1292, 1292-93 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (defendant did not preserve his argument regarding the discrepancy between the trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence, written sentence, and order on probation with either a contemporaneous objection or a rule 3.80…
-
Evans v. State, 904 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…ritten order of probation. The state conceded in its answer brief that the various written sentencing documents did not conform to the oral pronouncement, but argued that any error in this regard had not been preserved for review. In Evans v. State, 895 So. 2d 1292 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), we acknowledged the noted discrepancies and the fact that they “clearly constitute a sentencing error,” but held that because the issue was not preserved either through a contemporaneous objection or a motion pursuant to rule 3.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2000)
- Loring Spencer Jones v. State, 876 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Hudson v. State, 772 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Williams v. State, 772 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)