MARIO PLANCARTE, 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.
Mario Plancarte appeals the denial of his motion to correct an allegedly illegal sentence for aggravated battery with a firearm. The trial court initially issued a written sentence that omitted the mandatory minimum term, but later corrected it nunc pro tunc before the appeal was filed. The court affirms, holding that the corrected written sentence accurately reflects the oral pronouncement and is not illegal.
The court affirmed the denial of the motion to correct the illegal sentence, holding that the written sentence as amended nunc pro tunc on October 15, 2004, accurately reflects the oral pronouncement and is not an illegal sentence subject to correction under Rule 3.800(a).
[1] A trial court may correct a scrivener's error in a written sentence to conform to the oral pronouncement, even after a notice of appeal has been filed, if the correction…
[2] A written sentence that fails to include a mandatory minimum term orally pronounced by the court contains a scrivener's error.
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“a trial court loses jurisdiction to amend a sentence once a notice of appeal is filed and throughout the remainder of the appeal”
Establishes the general rule Plancarte relied upon regarding loss of jurisdiction; the court acknowledged this rule but found it did not apply because the amendment occurred before the appeal was filed.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlancarte was convicted of aggravated battery with a firearm for shooting another man in 2004. The trial court orally sentenced him to twenty-five yea…
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 Amendment cases and more on FLexlaw
BY ORDER OF THE COURT.
Mario Plancarte’s motion for rehearing is granted. The prior opinion dated April 11, 2012, is withdrawn, and the attached opinion is issued in its place. No further motions for rehearing will be entertained.
Mario Planearte appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence that was filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We address only one ground of his motion and affirm the order.
Mr. Planearte was convicted of aggravated battery with a firearm because he *1103concluded a disagreement with another man in 2004 by shooting the man. He was orally sentenced to twenty-five years’ imprisonment with a twenty-five-year minimum mandatory term pursuant to the 10/20/Life statute. § 775.087(2)(a)(3), Fla. Stat. (2003). We affirmed his direct appeal in 2005. Plancarte v. State, 918 So.2d 302 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (table decision).1
Mr. Planearte claims his sentence is illegal because the trial court initially entered a written sentence on September 21, 2004, that failed to include the minimum mandatory term. He filed his appeal on October 8, 2004. On October 15, 2004, the trial court entered an amended written sentence, nunc pro tunc, correcting the scrivener’s error.2 It appears that this alteration was simply attached to the existing sentencing documents without being separately file stamped. On direct appeal, the correction appeared to have been entered prior to the filing of the notice of appeal.
Mr. Planearte focuses on case law that stands for the proposition that a trial court loses jurisdiction to amend a sentence once a notice of appeal is filed and throughout the remainder of the appeal. See Linnon v. State, 988 So.2d 70, 72-73 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). He claims that the corrected sentence is void and has no effect. Although we agree with Mr. Planearte that the procedure used in this case was unusual and not in accordance with the foregoing case law, the resulting sentence correctly reflects the trial court’s oral pronouncement. If the sentence on direct appeal had been the written sentence in its original form without this attachment, it would have been an erroneous sentence. We simply conclude that Mr. Plancarte’s written sentence, as amended nunc pro tune on October 15, 2004, accurately states the sentence orally announced on September 21, 2004, and it is not an illegal sentence subject to any correction at this time under rule 3.800(a).
Affirmed.
CASANUEVA and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Columbus Rickey Ashley v. State, 850 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 2003)
- Amendments TO Fla. Rules OF Crim. Procedure 3.111(e) & 3.800 & Fla. Rules OF App. Procedure 9.020(h), 791 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 2001)
- Linnon v. State, 988 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- Plancarte v. State, 975 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)