JEFFERY BRANTLEY, 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.
Brantley appealed the denial of his Rule 3.800(a) motion challenging his conviction and sentence for unlawful sexual activity with a minor, arguing that the trial court's oral pronouncements omitted reference to count five while the written judgment included it. The court affirmed the denial of the Rule 3.800(a) motion but remanded for consideration of his Rule 3.850 motion due to disputed issues of fact regarding the accuracy of the sentencing transcript.
The court affirmed the denial of the Rule 3.800(a) motion because the lack of an oral adjudication of guilt does not affect the validity of a properly rendered written judgment of guilt, and the disputed accuracy of the sentencing transcript creates a factual question not remediable under Rule 3.800(a). The court remanded for the postconviction court to consider Brantley's Rule 3.850 motion because the time limit had not expired and the motion contained the required oath.
[1] A written judgment of guilt is valid even if an oral adjudication of guilt is not pronounced.
[2] A motion alleging a discrepancy between oral and written sentences is generally cognizable under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
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“The lack of an oral adjudication of guilt does not affect the validity of a written judgment of guilt that is properly rendered.”
Establishes that oral pronouncement of guilt is not a requirement for valid conviction under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrantley was convicted of multiple offenses, including count five, unlawful sexual activity with a minor sixteen or seventeen years of age. The writte…
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 Motion Pursuant To Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.800(A) cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the denial of Jeffery Brant-ley’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) but remand for the postconviction court to consider his sworn motion as filed pursuant to rule 3.850.
Mr. Brantley was convicted of multiple offenses, including count five, unlawful sexual activity with a minor sixteen or seventeen years of age. The written judgment and sentence reflect an adjudication of guilt and a sentence on count five. The transcript1 of the sentencing hearing does not record an oral adjudication of guilt or pronouncement of sentence on count five; instead, there are repeated references to “Count IV.” Mr. Brantley argues that the trial court’s oral pronouncements, which omit reference to count five, control over the written judgment and sentence on count five, resulting in an illegal sentence that is remediable under rule 3.800(a) pursuant to Williams v. State, 957 So.2d 600, 603 (Fla.2007) (holding that “a motion alleging a discrepancy between ... oral and written sentences should be cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) proceeding”).
The lack of an oral adjudication of guilt does not affect the validity of a written judgment of guilt that is properly ren*90dered. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.670; Ross v. State, 325 So.2d 430, 430-31 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Matera v. State, 218 So.2d 180, 184 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969). Because there is no requirement that a judgment of guilt must be orally pronounced, the transcript in this case does not provide Mr. Brantley with a basis for relief.
It is unnecessary to determine whether Williams applies to the alleged sentencing error in this case involving the absence of an oral pronouncement of sentence, rather than a discrepancy between the terms of the sentence as orally pronounced and the terms as written, as seen in Williams. A careful examination of the record reveals a reasonable basis to question the accuracy of the transcript of the sentencing hearing, thus creating a disputed issue of fact. As such, Mr. Brantley’s claim is not remediable under rule 3.800(a). See Blocker v. State, 968 So.2d 686, 688 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), review dismissed, 985 So.2d 1089 (2008).
Because the time for Brantley to seek relief under rule 3.850 had not yet run and his motion contained the oath required by that rule, we remand for the postconviction court to consider his motion pursuant to rule 3.850.
Affirmed, but remanded for further proceedings.
CASANUEVA, C.J., and KELLY and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Breanna Leanna Jackson v. State, 226 So. 3d 348 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…the State’s concession and this court’s decision in Blocker v. State, 968 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), we [*349] reverse and remand for consideration of Jackson’s motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Brantley v. State, 32 So. 3d 89, 90 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (noting that the time to seek relief under rule 3.850 had- not yet run and that the motion contained the oath required by the rule). As we explained in Blocker, although the evidence that the postconviction court cited in its…
-
Gutierrez v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Manatee County; Gilbert A. Smith, Jr., Judge. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Gutierrez v. State, 254 So. 3d 341 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (table decision); Brantley v. State, 32 So. 3d 89 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Davis v. State, 884 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Goutier v. State, 692 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); State v. Richards, 639 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Ramos v. State, 43 So. 3d 141 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); Simms v. State, 949…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 957 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2007)
- Matera v. State, 218 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Blocker v. State, 968 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- Ross v. State, 325 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Blocker v. State, 985 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 2008)