ALAN D. WHITE, 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 held that the postconviction court should have treated the defendant's letter as a motion to correct an illegal sentence, but affirmed the denial because the letter did not establish an illegal sentence.
Alan D. White filed a letter challenging his written judgment, which mischaracterized the offense of fleeing and eluding to which he pleaded no contes…
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 Finality Of Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
Alan D. White filed a letter with the postconviction court contending that his written judgment does not accurately reflect one of the crimes to which he entered a plea of no contest. Mr. White pleaded no contest to two offenses. One of these offenses was “fleeing and eluding (high speed),” a violation of section *429316.1935(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2013). The judgment and sentence characterize this offense as “aggravated fleeing and eluding,” which is a violation of section 316.1935(4)(a), a different offense.
The postconviction court treated Mr. White’s letter as a motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) and denied the motion. A motion to correct any sentencing error may be filed under rule 3.800(b)(1) during the time allowed for the filing of a notice of appeal, or, under rule 3.800(b)(2), while an appeal is pending. When Mr. White filed his letter, the time for filing an appeal had expired. It follows that Mr. White’s judgment and sentence were final; thus rule 3.800(b) was inapplicable. In addition, the trial court could not treat the letter as a motion for postconviction relief under rule 3.8501 because the letter did not conform to the requirements of rule 3.850(e). The postconviction court should have treated Mr. White’s letter as a motion to correct an illegal sentence under rule 3.800(a).
We affirm the order denying Mr. White’s motion because his letter did not establish that his sentences were illegal. Our affirmance of the postconviction court’s order is without prejudice to Mr. White’s right to raise the issue of the inaccuracy of the judgment’s description of the crime to which he pleaded no contest in a timely motion filed in accordance with rule 3.850.
Affirmed without prejudice.
ALTENBERND and NORTHCUTT, JJ., Concur.