KENNETH INGRAHAM, 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.
The court affirmed Ingraham's resentence but noted discrepancies between the oral pronouncement and written sentence regarding prison credit and court costs, allowing him to pursue post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
The trial court's resentence is affirmed, but the defendant may file a motion to correct the sentence to align the written judgment with the oral pronouncement regarding prison credit and court costs.
[1] A trial court's oral pronouncement of sentence controls over the written judgment when they conflict, and the trial court may delegate calculation of prison credit to the…
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 intelligenceKenneth Ingraham received a resentence following this court's prior reversal and remand. The trial court's oral pronouncement included prison credit a…
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 Prison Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
In this appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Kenneth Ingraham challenges the sentence he received as a result of this court’s reversal and remand for resentencing. See Ingraham v. State, 32 So.3d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). We affirm Mr. Ingraham’s corrected sentence but note that the written sentence fails to conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence. The trial court’s oral pronouncement included prison credit for Mr. Ingraham, to the extent that he was entitled to that credit; however, the written sentence does not reflect the award of any prison credit. See Downing v. State, 779 So.2d 562, 563 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (finding that the trial court may delegate the administrative task of calculating prison credit to the Department of Corrections but that the trial court is responsible for ordering such credit (citing Thistle v. State, 769 So.2d 1149, 1149 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000))). Additionally, the oral pronouncement indicates that Mr. Ingraham’s court costs total $675; however, the written sentence indicates $725 in costs.
Because Mr. Ingraham did not preserve these issues by objecting or filing a motion to correct sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b), we affirm without prejudice to any right Mr. Ingraham may have to file a rule 3.800(a) motion. See Woodard v. State, 6 So.3d 726, 727 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); see also Williams v. State, 957 So.2d 600, 605 (Fla.2007).
Affirmed.
DAVIS and KELLY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McCALL v. State, 88 So. 3d 1015 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…ritten sentence. Nevertheless, Mr. McCall did not object or file a motion to correct this sentencing error in accordance with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b). Thus he failed to preserve the issue for appellate review. Ingraham v. State, 82 So. 3d 1101 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); Woodard v. State, 6 So. 3d 726, 727 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). Accordingly, our affirmance is without prejudice to any right Mr. McCall may have to file a motion to correct his sentence under rule 3.800(a). We have considered all of th…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Williams v. State, 957 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2007)
- Ingraham v. State, 32 So. 3d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Downing v. State, 779 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Thistle v. State, 769 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Cummings v. State, 779 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Quarra Woodard v. State, 6 So. 3d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)