MICHAEL DARRIN ZILL, 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 defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence was properly denied because it failed to meet procedural requirements and lacked supporting documentation.
Michael Zill appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, which raised issues regarding jail credit and a discrepancy between the…
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 Rule 3.800(A) cases and more on FLexlaw
Michael Zill appeals the denial of a rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence. His motion raised two claims: an error in his credit for time served and a discrepancy between the written sentence and the oral pronouncement.
Zill’s rule 3.800(a) motion was filed after the effective date of rule 3.801, which applies to correction of jail credit. His motion was not under oath and did not include the content required by rule 3.801(c). The time for him to file a rule 3.801 motion expired on July 1, 2014. We affirm the denial of this portion of the order.
In his second claim Zill alleged that contrary to the court’s oral pronouncement, the written sentence indicates that count II runs consecutively to count III, not just consecutively to count I. He alleged the court orally pronounced a total sentence of eight years and the discrepancy in the written sentence is causing him to serve nine years. Zill did not provide copies of the written sentences and the sentencing transcript to support his claim. In a rule 3.800(a) motion, the burden is on the defendant to demonstrate entitlement to relief. Johnson v. State, 60 So.3d 1045 (Fla.2011); Casteel v. State, 141 So.3d 624 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). Accordingly, we affirm the denial of this claim without prejudice for Zill to refile his motion with supporting documentation.
Affirmed.
WARNER, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stukel v. State, 251 So. 3d 193 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)…2007). Affirmance without prejudice is nonetheless appropriate because appellant’s motion failed to attach the sentencing hearing transcript, the portion of the record necessary to address the claim in his rule 3.800(a) motion. See Zill v. State, 162 So. 3d 83, 84 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (affirming denial of rule 3.800(a) motion claiming sentencing discrepancy without prejudice to appellant’s right to refile motion with supporting documentation of transcript and written sentences); see also Ayala-Laies v. Sta…
-
Slade v. State, 225 So. 3d 281 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…t prejudice to appellant’s right to refile his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence with supporting record documentation attached on his claim of an oral versus written sentencing discrepancy. Zill v. State, 162 So. 3d 83 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). Gerber, C.J., .Ciklin and Forst, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Johnson v. State, 60 So. 3d 1045 (Fla. 2011)
- Casteel v. State, 141 So. 3d 624 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)