ERIC B. LANTERMAN, 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.
Appellant's motion to correct an illegal sentence was reversed because the record did not conclusively refute his claim that he was entitled to 254 days of jail credit rather than the 224 days reflected in the written judgment.
Where a discrepancy exists between oral pronouncement and written judgment regarding jail credit, the sentencing order must be corrected to reflect the oral pronouncement unless the record conclusively refutes the claim.
[1] Where a written discrepancy exists between oral pronouncement and written judgment regarding jail credit, the sentencing order must be corrected to reflect the oral prono…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Where a written discrepancy exists as to the amount of jail credit an appellant was awarded during the oral pronouncement of his sentence, the sentencing order must be corrected to reflect the oral pronouncement.”
Establishing the rule for correcting jail credit discrepancies between oral pronouncement and written judgment.
Appellant was sentenced and claims entitlement to 254 days of jail credit, but the written judgment reflects only 224 days. The trial court denied his…
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 Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Because the record does not conclusively refute his claim of entitlement to additional jail credit, we reverse.
Appellant alleges that he is entitled to 254 days of jail credit, but that his written judgment reflects only 224 days of credit. Where a written discrepancy exists as to the amount of jail credit an appellant was awarded during the oral pronouncement of his sentence, the sentencing order must be corrected to reflect the oral pronouncement. See Guerra v. State, 927 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). The trial court denied the appellant’s motion on the basis that appellant was only entitled to 220 days of credit. However, the trial court failed to attach portions of the record demonstrating that the trial court made a clerical error in orally pronouncing appellant was entitled to 254 days of jail credit.
We reverse the trial court’s summary denial of appellant’s motion and remand for record attachments conclusively refuting appellant’s claim or for the award of additional jail credit, as the record dictates.
REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.
WEBSTER, DAVIS, and HAWKES, JJ., concur.