THOMAS PERRY WELLS, JR., 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.
Thomas Perry Wells, Jr. appeals the denial of his rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief, claiming his written sentence does not conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement. The court affirms, finding his sentence was already corrected nunc pro tunc in 1997 and directing him to exhaust administrative remedies within the Department of Corrections before seeking further judicial relief.
The court affirmed the denial of postconviction relief, finding that Wells' written sentence was already corrected on November 21, 1997, and therefore no further judicial correction was necessary. Wells must first exhaust administrative remedies within the Department of Corrections to clarify any discrepancy, and may seek mandamus relief from the circuit court only after exhausting such remedies.
[1] A defendant seeking to correct a written sentence that allegedly fails to conform to the oral pronouncement must first exhaust available administrative remedies within th…
[2] A defendant may seek mandamus relief from the circuit court after exhausting administrative remedies to rectify discrepancies in sentencing documents.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Defendant's written sentence already was corrected, on November 21, 1997. Because he now seeks clarification of his sentence due to correspondence which he received from the department, he must first attempt to rectify any discrepancy through the administrative remedies available to him within the department.”
Establishes that the trial court's sentencing correction was already completed and any current discrepancy must be addressed through administrative rather than judicial channels.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWells was sentenced concurrently to ten years as a habitual felony offender (HFO) for count I (third degree felony) and thirty years as HFO for count …
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 Nunc Pro Tunc Correction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Thomas Perry Wells, Jr. (Defendant) appeals an order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief, filed pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Defendant was sentenced concurrently to ten years as a habitual felony offender (HFO) for count I, a third degree felony, and to thirty years as a HFO for count II, a first degree felony punishable by life. However, his original written sentencing documents filed February 7, 1997, had the two sentences reversed. On direct appeal, this court remanded to correct the written sentences, Wells v. State, 700 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), and they were corrected nunc pro tunc on November 21, 1997. Thereaf ter, however, his Uniform Commitment to Custody was reissued on January 4, 2002.1
Defendant’s instant rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief claimed his current written sentence failed to conform to the sentencing court’s oral pronouncement, despite the correction, because the classification department at his institution informed him it had received documentation from the trial court on January 7, 2002, increasing his sentence for count I from ten to thirty years, and decreasing his sentence for count II from thirty to ten years. He assumed that this documentation was sent with the amended commitment papers on January 4, 2002, and that the commitment attached the original sentencing documents, rather than the corrected ones. He asked the trial court to correct the written sentence to conform to the oral pronouncement and to send the department copies of the amended sentences entered on November 21, 1997. The trial court denied the motion and Defendant appealed.
Defendant’s written sentence already was corrected, on November 21, 1997. Because he now seeks clarification of his sentence due to correspondence which he received from the department, he must first attempt to rectify any discrepancy through the administrative remedies available to him within the department. After exhausting those remedies, he may, if necessary, seek mandamus relief from the circuit court.
We affirm the order without prejudice to his doing so.
SHAHOOD, C.J., KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur. . The trial court corrected a clerical mistake in Defendant’s judgment forms, correcting his name from Thomas Perry Wells to Thomas Perry Wells, Jr.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Prosser v. State, 700 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Wells v. State, 700 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)