STEVEN JANOWSKI, 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 Janowski appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Rule 3.800(a), claiming a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement (6.35 months) and written sentence (76.35 months). The appellate court affirmed the denial on the merits, finding the record clearly showed the trial judge orally pronounced 76.35 months, consistent with the written sentence.
The court affirmed the denial of the motion. While the court noted that discrepancies between oral and written sentences are not cognizable in Rule 3.800(a) motions, it affirmed on the merits because the record refutes Janowski's claim of any discrepancy—the judge clearly orally pronounced 76.35 months, matching the written sentence.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence under Rule 3.800(a) is not cognizable for claims that a written sentence does not conform to an oral pronouncement.
[2] A claim that a written sentence does not conform to an oral pronouncement may be cognizable in a motion filed under Rule 3.850.
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“the trial court stated it was sentencing Defendant to 'the bottom of the guidelines,' the Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet generated a lowest permissible sentence of 76.35 months, and the transcript indicates the trial judge merely paused between saying '7' and '6.35 months.' Clearly, the sentencing judge orally pronounced a prison sentence of 76.35 months, the same sentence that was reflected on the written sentencing documents.”
Establishes the court's factual finding that no discrepancy existed between oral and written sentences, with specific evidence supporting this conclusion.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJanowski received a written sentence of 76.35 months in prison. He filed a motion claiming the trial judge orally pronounced a sentence of only 6.35 m…
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 Discrepancy Between Oral And Written Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Steven Janowski (Defendant) appeals an order summarily denying his motion to correct illegal sentence and petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking immediate release, filed pursuant to Rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. We affirm, but for a reason different from those stated in the trial court’s order of denial.
The motion sought resentencing based on Defendant’s claim that the written sentence, including 76.35 months in prison, did not conform to the oral pronouncement, allegedly imposing a prison sentence of 6.35 months. The trial court denied the motion because this court has held such a ground is not cognizable in a Rule 3.800(a) motion. See, e.g., Rinderer v. State, 857 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Campbell v. State, 718 So. 2d 886 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). However, because the motion was filed within the time for filing a timely Rule 3.850 motion, such reasoning only justified denying the motion without prejudice to refile the motion within a timely sworn Rule 3.850 motion.1
We affirm the denial. The reason we do not affirm without prejudice to Defendant to refile the motion is because on the merits the record refutes Defendant’s claim of discrepancy. The trial court stated it was sentencing Defendant to “the bottom of the guidelines,” the Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet generated a lowest permissible sentence of 76.35 months, and the transcript indicates the trial judge merely paused between saying “7” and “6.35 months.” Clearly, the sentencing judge orally pronounced a prison sentence of 76.35 months, the same sentence that was reflected on the written sentencing documents. Thus, the claim would have been properly denied even if it were raised in a Rule 3.850 motion.
Affirmed.
SHAHOOD, TAYLOR and HAZOURI, JJ., concur. . Defendant's reply below, which the trial court apparently did not review before ruling, asked the trial court to treat his Rule 3.800(a) motion as if it were filed pursuant to Rule 3.850. However, the motion, in which Defendant stated that the facts were true "to the best of my knowledge, understanding, and belief," was not properly sworn so that it could be considered pursuant to that rule. Gorham v. State, 494 So. 2d 211 (Fla.1986); Scott v. State, 464 So. 2d 1171 (Fla.1985).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bayardo Chamorro v. State, 948 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Janowski v. State, 910 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).…
Authorities Cited
- Scott v. State, 464 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 1985)
- Gorham v. State, 494 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1986)
- Campbell v. State, 718 So. 2d 886 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Rinderer v. State, 857 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)