STEVEN M. COOLEY, 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.
Steven Cooley appeals the summary denial of a Rule 3.800(a) motion challenging his sentence. The court affirms the denial of two claims (contending the mandatory sentencing scheme was applied incorrectly and that resentencing would violate double jeopardy) but reverses as to the claim that the written judgment does not match the oral pronouncement of sentence.
The court affirmed the summary denial of claims two and three without comment. The court reversed the summary denial of claim one, finding it facially sufficient and not refuted by record attachments, and remanded for the trial court to either attach record portions conclusively refuting the appellant's entitlement to relief or to strike the mandatory minimum term to conform with the oral pronouncement.
[1] The oral pronouncement of a sentence prevails over the written judgment when there is a discrepancy.
[2] A claim that a written judgment does not comport with the oral pronouncement of sentence is facially sufficient and cognizable under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.…
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“Generally, the oral pronouncement of sentence prevails over the written judgment.”
Establishes the governing legal principle that oral sentence pronouncement takes precedence over written judgment when there is a discrepancy.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn September 25, 2003, Cooley was adjudicated guilty of an unspecified second-degree felony and sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender to 30 …
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 Motion Pursuant To Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.800(A) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges the trial court’s summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) in which he alleges that (1) the written judgment does not comport with the oral pronouncement of his sentence; (2) the controlling oral pronouncement of his sentence does not comport with the mandatory sentencing scheme in section 775.084(4)(b); and (3) the appellant may not be resentenced under the habitual felony offender statute because it would be a violation of double jeopardy. We affirm the summary denial of the appellant’s second and third claims without comment. Because the appellant’s first claim is facially sufficient and not refuted by record attachments, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
On September 25, 2003, the appellant was adjudicated guilty of an unspecified second-degree felony and allegedly sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender to 30 years in prison with a minimum mandatory term of 30 years. The appellant alleges that the written judgment of 30 years in prison as a habitual violent felony offender with a minimum mandatory term of 30 years does not comport with the oral pronouncement of 30 years in prison without any such minimum mandatory term.
Generally, the oral pronouncement of sentence prevails over the written judgment. See Ashley v. State, 850 So. 2d 1265, 1268 (Fla.2003). The instant appellant properly alleges that his written judgment does not comport with the oral pronouncement of his sentence and points to the place in the record that will demonstrate this fact. This facially sufficient claim is cognizable under rule 3.800(a). See Fitzpatrick v. State, 863 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Thus, the trial court erred in denying the appellant’s first claim without attaching record portions which conclusively refute the appellant’s entitlement to relief. Id.
We accordingly reverse and remand for the trial court to either attach record portions conclusively refuting the appellant’s entitlement to relief, or else strike the mandatory minimum term in conformance with the trial court’s oral pronouncement of the appellant’s sentence.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED for further proceedings.
DAVIS, LEWIS and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nielson v. State, 984 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…d 600 (Fla.2007); Pepitone v. State, 846 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Jones v. State, 780 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Byers v. State, 916 So. 2d 923, 924 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Mumahan v. State, 916 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Cooley v. State, 901 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Fitzpatrick v. State, 863 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Wyche v. State, 624 So. 2d 830, 832 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).…
-
Tosha Gray v. State, 915 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…the court did not originally impose the minimum mandatory term, it could not do so at a later date after Gray had begun to serve her sentence, unless there was a plea agreement and her default was duly established. See also Coo [*257] ley v. State, 901 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). If the trial court orally imposed a minimum mandatory term at the original sentencing, then the written sentence was properly corrected. The state argues that failure to orally impose a three year minimum mandatory term for use…
-
Nelson v. State, 1 So. 3d 345 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…al court did not attach the transcript of the appellant’s sentencing hearing. Without the transcript, it is impossible to determine whether the appellant’s -written sentence indeed comports with that which was orally pronounced. See Cooley v. State, 901 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Graydon v. State, 647 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). We therefore reverse the order under review and remand this case for the trial court’s further consideration of the motion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. ALLEN, VAN NORTWICK, a…
Authorities Cited
- Columbus Rickey Ashley v. State, 850 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 2003)
- Fitzpatrick v. State, 863 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)