ANTOINE MUSEAU, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rule 3.800(A) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Antoine Museau appeals the denial of his rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. We affirm all points, but note that, within his first issue, he claims a discrepancy between the written sentence and oral pronouncement. This court has held that the claim is not cognizable through a rule 3.800(a) motion. See Campbell v. State, 718 So. 2d 886 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Museau’s motion was not sworn.
Consequently, we affirm the denial of relief, but without prejudice to Museau seeking relief pursuant to rule 3.850, if time allows. See Moreland v. State, 944 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Wilbon v. State, 944 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Renaud v. State, 901 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), review dismissed, 926 So. 2d 1241 (Fla.2006); see also Covell v. State, 891 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). As in Wilbon, we certify conflict with Fitzpatrick v. State, 863 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004), and Berthiaume v. State, 864 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). See 944 So. 2d at 397 (on rehearing).
STEVENSON, C.J., GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pantoja v. State, 59 So. 3d 1092 (Fla. 2011)…, in an effort to bar all character impeachment based on prior misconduct that did not involve a criminal conviction. The plain language of section 90.610, Florida Statutes, authorizes impeachment with only prior convictions .... ” Roebuck v. State, 953 So. 2d 40, 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). “[W]hen the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning, there is no occasion for resorting to the rules of statutory interpretation and construction; the statute must be given i…
-
Eaglin v. State, 19 So. 3d 935 (Fla. 2009)…gh the First District has generally rejected a false reporting privilege, the First District has also acknowledged that "due process may require germane cross-examination of a witness regarding a prior incident of false reporting.” Roebuck v. State, 953 So. 2d 40, 44 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). However, we do not consider such an argument to be viable under the circumstances of this case. . Specifically, Eaglin requested that the court consider as mitigation the following: inmate classification systems failure, to…
-
Pantoja v. State, 990 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…this case. We begin our discussion by explaining the proper methods of impeaching a witness, as codified in the Evidence Code and further explicated by the Florida Supreme Court. In doing so, we adhere to the position we stated in Roebuck v. State, 953 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007), which is that this Court is not empowered to create exceptions to the statutory sections governing impeachment of witnesses. Next, we will address Appellant’s argument that failure to recognize an exception in the instant case i…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Campbell v. State, 718 So. 2d 886 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Fitzpatrick v. State, 863 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Berthiaume v. State, 864 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Wilmann Renaud v. State, 926 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 2006)
- T.D.R. v. State, 891 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Wilmann Renaud v. State, 901 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Moreland v. State, 944 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Wilbon v. State, 944 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Matthias Rath v. Network Mktg., L.C., 944 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)