ERIC MALLON, 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.
A facially sufficient claim for rule 3.800(a) relief regarding a discrepancy between an oral sentence pronouncement and a written order requires the trial court to conclusively refute the claim.
Appellant sought to correct his written sentence, alleging it imposed consecutive minimum mandatory terms while the oral pronouncement imposed concurr…
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 Minimum Mandatory Term cases and more on FLexlaw
[*199] PER CURIAM.
Eric Mallon appeals the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion seeking to have an alleged discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of sentence and the written sentencing order resolved.1 Specifically, Mallon’s motion acknowledges that the written sentencing order imposed consecutive minimum mandatory terms on his two life sentences, but contends that when it orally imposed the sentence, the trial court actually imposed concurrent minimum mandatory terms.2 Accordingly, Mallon asserts that his sentences should be corrected to reflect their concurrent nature because the error is clear from the face of the record.
Mallon has raised a facially sufficient claim for rule 3.800(a) relief that the trial court, by summarily denying the motion, has failed to conclusively refute. On remand, the trial court shall determine whether the written sentence conforms to the oral pronouncement. If they do, the trial court shall attach written portions of the record conclusively refuting Mallon’s claim.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
SAWAYA, TORPY and EVANDER, JJ„ concur. . "A rule 3.800(a) motion is the proper vehicle to address a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of a sentence and the written order of sentence.” England v. State, 879 So. 2d 660, 661 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Berthiaume v. State, 864 So. 2d 1257, 1258 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
. Mallon relies on the trial court’s oral statement at sentencing that it was "going to adjudicate you guilty and sentence you to life in prison with a minimum mandatory of 25 years. That will be followed by 20 years of probation as concurrent on counts one and two.” Parenthetically, we note that the 20-year term of probation was stricken from Mallon's sentence in his direct appeal. Mallon v. State, 626 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sunny Harris v. State, 160 So. 3d 523 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. We affirm, except as to one claim. Harris’ motion raised a legally sufficient claim that the written judgment did not conform to the oral pronouncement of sentence. See Mallon v. State, 939 So. 2d 198, 199 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (“A rule 3.800(a) motion is the proper vehicle to address a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of a sentence and the written order of sentence.”). This claim does not appear to have been considered by the trial…
-
Nelson v. State, 225 So. 3d 914 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…is not filed in the record in the trial court, it Is possible, as Appellant seems to allege, that he may have a transcript that was not filed. Therefore, we reverse the order under review and remand this case to the trial court. See Mallon v. State, 939 So. 2d 198, 199 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (“On remand, the trial court shall determine whether the written sentence conforms to the oral pronouncement. If they do, the trial court shall attach written portions of the record conclusively refuting Mallon’s claim.”). I…
-
Webb v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)…e Department of Corrections to correct the discrepancy, but his grievance was denied. 4 A motion filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a) is the proper vehicle to address a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and the written sentence. Mallon v. State, 939 So. 2d 198, 199 n.1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); see Harris v. State, 160 So. 3d 523, 523 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020). Because no evidentiary hearing is permitted under a rule 3.800(a) motion, an appeal of the trial court’s ruling involves only pure issues of law and therefor…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Berthiaume v. State, 864 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- England v. State, 879 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Mallon v. State, 626 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)