DARRELL J. BYERS, 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 appellate court reviewed the summary denial of a post-conviction motion. The appellant argued his written sentence as a habitual felony offender was illegal because it wasn't orally pronounced and exceeded statutory limits.
The court held that a claim of an illegal sentence due to a discrepancy between oral pronouncement and the written judgment, or a sentence exceeding statutory limits, is cognizable in a rule 3.800 motion. The summary denial was improper.
[1] A claim that a written sentence includes a habitual felony offender designation, but the trial court failed to orally pronounce such designation, is cognizable in a post-…
[2] A sentence may be corrected where it fails to comport with statutory limitations and that illegality is revealed on the face of the record without need for an evidentiary…
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“An appellant’s claim that his sentence is illegal where the written sentence includes a habitual felony offender designation, but the trial court failed to orally pronounce the appellant a habitual felony offender is cognizable in a rule 3.800 motion.”
Establishes the legal basis for the appellant's claim being cognizable.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant's written sentence included a habitual felony offender designation and a 20-year term. He claimed this designation was not orally pronou…
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 Habitual Felony Offender cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges the summary denial of his post conviction motion. In his motion, the appellant asserts that his sentence is illegal as a matter of law where the written judgment and sentence designating the appellant a habitual felony offender does not comport with the trial court’s oral pronouncement of the appellant’s sentence.
In the appellant’s motion, he asserts that the written sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment as a habitual felony offender does not comport with the oral pronouncement which omitted the appellant’s designation as a habitual felony offender. Further, the appellant asserts that his orally imposed sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment for a second-degree felony exceeds the statutory maximum and is thereby illegal. An appellant’s claim that his sentence is illegal where the written sentence includes a habitual felony offender designation, but the trial court failed to orally pronounce the appellant a habitual felony offender is cognizable in a rule 3.800 motion. See Fitzpatrick v. State, 863 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). In addition, a sentence may be corrected under rule 3.800(a) where a sentence fails to comport with statutory limitations and that illegality is revealed on the face of the record without need for an evidentiary hearing. See State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla.1998). Here, the appellant points to the portion of the record which demonstrates his entitlement to relief. Moreover, if the appellant’s assertions are correct, his sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment exceeds the maximum authorized sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment for a second-degree felony. See § 775.082, Fla. Stat. (2002). Furthermore, the trial court failed to include record attachments conclusively refuting the appellant’s claim.
Therefore, we reverse the denial of the appellant’s rule 3.800(a) motion and remand to the trial court to either attach the proper record portions refuting the appellant’s claims or to grant the appellant the relief he requests.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
KAHN, C.J., HAWKES and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 957 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2007)…ying the movant’s motion, or otherwise provided in the record on appeal, the order had to be reversed and remanded so that the trial court could either attach the transcript or take other necessary action. 863 So. 2d at 463; see also Byers v. State, 916 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). In Watts, the Second District held that an allegation that a written sentence differs from the oral pronouncement is cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) proceeding and ordered the trial court to review the record on remand to determi…
-
Nielson v. State, 984 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…, 974 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (case numbers 2D04-4372 and 2D04-4414). . See Williams v. State, 957 So. 2d 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).…
-
Raynard Wilder v. State, 967 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…on. The trial court denied the motion as untimely because it was filed pursuant to rule 3.850. However, a claim that the written sentence does not conform to the oral pronouncement of sentence is cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion. Byers v. State, 916 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). The trial court should have treated the appellant’s motion as one filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a). See Valdes v. State, 765 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Richardson v. State, 719 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Accordingly, th…
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
- State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1998)
- Fitzpatrick v. State, 863 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)