LATOYA MAHONEY-SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The court held that the written judgment was consistent with the oral pronouncement at sentencing, and therefore affirmed the denial of the motion for post-conviction relief.
Appellant filed a motion for rehearing, alleging the trial court's written sentence was inconsistent with its oral pronouncement and contained scriven…
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 Habitual Violent Felony Offender cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter is before the Court on the denial of a “Motion for Rehearing Sentencing and Probation not in Compliance with Oral and Written Pronouncement.” We treat this appeal from that order as an appeal from the denial of a rule 3.800 motion for post-conviction relief. Because we conclude that the trial court’s written judgment is consistent with the court’s oral pronouncement at sentencing, we affirm.
The sole basis for appellant Latoya Ma-honey-Smith’s motion for rehearing below was that the trial court’s sentence was inconsistent with the oral and written pronouncement and that there were multiple scrivener’s errors in the written sentence. Mahoney-Smith is mistaken. At the sentencing hearing on December 13, 2007, the trial court orally pronounced sentence as a Habitual Violent Felony Offender as follows:
I will sentence you as a habitual violent offender to ten years State prison with a minimum mandatory five years to be followed by ten years of probation.
The written sentence imposed on December 24, 2007 conforms with the court’s oral pronouncement at sentencing, and thus there is no sentencing error.
We decline to address the other issues Mahoney-Smith raises in her Initial Brief, as these issues are meritless.1
Affirmed.