OLIVER ALLEN, 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.
Allen appealed the trial court's summary denial of his postconviction relief motion, claiming that the court's oral sentence pronouncement at sentencing differed from the written judgment. The appellate court reversed because Allen stated a facially sufficient claim that required an evidentiary hearing or transcript review to resolve the discrepancy.
Allen stated a facially sufficient claim requiring resolution on the merits. Because the plea agreement does not conclusively refute Allen's claim, the trial court must either hold an evidentiary hearing or provide the sentencing transcript to refute his allegation. The oral pronouncement of sentence controls when it conflicts with the written sentence.
[1] A written sentence must comport with the sentence orally pronounced by the court, and in case of inconsistency, the oral pronouncement controls.
[2] A motion for postconviction relief is facially sufficient if it states a claim that the oral pronouncement of a sentence does not comport with the written sentence.
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“Written sentences must comport with the sentence that is orally pronounced, and when the two are inconsistent, the oral pronouncement controls.”
Establishes the legal principle that oral pronouncements take precedence over written judgments in sentencing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAllen entered a plea of nolo contendere to possession and sale of cocaine and received a 30-month sentence. Allen claimed that at sentencing, the tria…
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 Written Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges the trial court’s summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Because Appellant stated a facially sufficient claim that the trial court’s oral pronouncement at sentencing does not comport with his written sentence, we reverse.
Following a plea of nolo contende-re, Appellant was convicted of possession and sale of cocaine, and the trial court imposed a sentence of 30 months’ incarceration. In the instant rule 3.850 motion, Appellant alleges that, at sentencing, the trial court orally pronounced that all but one year and one day of his sentence would be suspended and that the written sentence does not reflect this suspension. Written sentences must comport with the sentence that is orally pronounced, and when the two are inconsistent, the oral pronouncement controls. See Ashley v. State, 850 So. 2d 1265, 1268 (Fla.2003).
The trial court incorrectly ruled that Appellant’s plea form demonstrated that the plea agreement was for 30 months’ incarceration and that there would be no logical reason for the trial court to suspend a portion of the sentence. However, the plea agreement does not conclusively refute Appellant’s claim that the sentence that was orally pronounced differs from that which was written. When addressing a rule 3.850 motion, the trial court must either determine that the record refutes the movant’s claim and attach such support to the order denying the motion, or hold an evidentiary hearing on the merits. See Tompkins v. State, 872 So. 2d 230, 238 (Fla.2003) (internal citations omitted); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(d). While the trial court provided the plea form, the clerk’s worksheet, the judgment and sentence, and the clerk’s certificate in denying Appellant’s motion, only the transcript of the sentencing hearing will refute or support his claim. The transcript was not attached to the appealed order. We, therefore, reverse the summary denial of Appellant’s motion and remand to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing or to refute Appellant’s claim with a transcript of the sentencing hearing.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
KAHN, HAWKES and THOMAS, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Busbee v. State, 187 So. 3d 1266 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…ough the written sentences themselves being inconsistent with the oral pronouncements. “Written sentences must comport with the sentence that is orally pronounced, and when the two are inconsistent, the oral pronouncement controls.” Allen v. State, 940 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (citing Ashley v. State, 850 So. 2d 1265, 1268 (Fla. 2003)). Here, as described above, in all of the counts in which the oral pronouncements were inconsistent with the written sentences, the oral pronouncements were legal. Howeve…
Authorities Cited
- Columbus Rickey Ashley v. State, 850 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 2003)
- Tompkins v. State, 872 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 2003)