ARIEL BUENO, 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.
Ariel Bueno appeals the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. The court affirms the trial court's order denying Bueno's motion, but notes without deciding that the written judgment and sentence conflict with the trial court's oral pronouncement and reserves the right for either party to file a motion to correct the sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
The court affirms the denial of Bueno's motion to correct illegal sentence as to the issues he raised below because those issues lack merit. However, the court notes that the written judgment and sentence conflict with the oral pronouncement and reserves the right for either party to file a motion to correct the illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), without prejudice.
[1] A written sentence that conflicts with the oral pronouncement of the trial court may be corrected by a motion to correct illegal sentence.
[2] An appellate court will not consider an issue that was not raised in the trial court.
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 court may at any time correct an illegal sentence imposed by it ... when it is affirmatively alleged that the court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to that relief”
Establishes that trial courts have authority to correct illegal sentences when the record demonstrates a conflict between oral pronouncement and written judgment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBueno entered a plea agreement with the State. At sentencing, the trial court orally pronounced a sentence of twenty-five years' prison on Count One 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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.800(A) cases and more on FLexlaw
ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
Upon the State’s motion for clarification, we withdraw our previously-issued opinion and substitute the following opinion in its stead.
Appellant, Ariel Bueno, appeals from an order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). After Bueno *588filed his initial brief, we directed the State to file an answer brief addressing whether the judgment and sentence accurately reflects the oral pronouncement made by the trial court at the time of sentencing. In its answer brief, the State acknowledges that the judgment and sentence do not conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement1, but correctly points out that Bueno did not raise this issue in the trial court, and we therefore do not consider it on appeal. Stangarone v. State, 94 So.3d 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).
As to the issues which Bueno did raise in his motion below and on appeal, we find they are without merit and affirm the trial court’s order denying same. Our affirmance is without prejudice to the filing, by either party, of a motion to correct illegal sentence to the extent the written judgment and sentence conflicts with the oral pronouncement. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a) (providing that “[a] court may at any time correct an illegal sentence imposed by it ... when it is affirmatively alleged that the court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to that relief....”); Williams v. State, 957 So.2d 600 (Fla.2007) (holding that where it is apparent from the face of the record that a written sentence conflicts with the oral pronouncement, relief is properly sought by a motion to correct illegal sentence under rule 3.800(a)). Affirmed without prejudice.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 957 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2007)
- Sanchez v. State, 94 So. 3d 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- Stangarone v. State, 94 So. 3d 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)