MICHAEL A. HAGAN, 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.
Michael Hagan challenged his convictions for tampering with evidence and second-degree murder, as well as his sentences. The court affirmed his convictions and the dismissal of his jail credit request, but reversed and remanded to correct a discrepancy between the oral and written sentencing orders regarding which sentence should be consecutive.
The court affirmed Hagan's convictions and the dismissal of his jail credit request without prejudice, but reversed and remanded for entry of an amended sentence correcting the designation of consecutive sentencing to reflect the trial court's oral pronouncement. The court allowed Hagan to file a legally sufficient jail credit motion within sixty days of mandate.
[1] A written sentence must comport with the trial court's oral pronouncement of sentence.
[2] A trial court may correct a sentencing error when the written sentence fails to reflect the oral pronouncement.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“At the sentencing hearing, the trial court orally pronounced sentences of life in prison with a twenty-five-year mandatory minimum for second-degree murder and five years in prison for tampering with evidence. The court imposed the life sentence consecutive to the five-year sentence. However, the written sentence reverses the designation and imposes the five-year sentence consecutive to the life sentence.”
Establishes the discrepancy between oral and written sentencing that required reversal and remand
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHagan was convicted of tampering with evidence and second-degree murder. At sentencing, the trial court orally pronounced a life sentence with a 25-ye…
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 Oral Pronouncement Vs. Written Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
BY ORDER OF THE COURT:
Upon consideration of a motion for rehearing, rehearing en banc, or for written opinion filed by the appellant on March 29, 2016,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion for written opinion is granted regarding the issue of whether the trial court erred in dismissing appellant’s request for jail credit. The motions for rehearing and rehearing en banc are denied. Accordingly, the opinion dated March 16, 2016, is withdrawn, and the attached opinion is substituted therefor. No further motions will be entertained.
Michael A. Hagan seeks review of his judgment and sentences for tampering with evidence and second-degree murder. We affirm Hagan’s convictions without comment. As for Hagan’s challenge to his sentences, we reverse for the sole purpose of amending the sentences to reflect the relief granted pursuant to his motion to correct sentencing error. We affirm the court’s dismissal of Hagan’s request for jail credit without prejudice to his filing a legally sufficient motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801.
At the sentencing hearing, the trial court orally pronounced sentences of life in prison with a twenty-five-year mandatory minimum for second-degree murder and five years in prison for tampering with evidence. The court imposed the life sentence consecutive to the five-year sentence. However, the written sentence reverses the designation and imposes the five-year sentence consecutive to the life sentence. After the notice of appeal was filed, Hagan filed a motion to correct sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) in which he argued that the written sentence fails to comport with the court’s oral pronouncement. The trial court granted relief on this basis and ordered that the written sentence be corrected to designate the life sentence as consecutive to the five-year sentence. Despite these directions, an amended sentence has not yet been entered. Accordingly, we must reverse and remand for the entry of an amended sentence reflecting the relief granted.
In his rule 3.800(b) motion, Hagan also requested that the court award him 731 days of credit for the time he spent in county jail prior to sentencing. We conclude that the trial court properly dismissed Hagan’s request without prejudice because it was facially insufficient under rule 3.801. See Maldonado v. State, 145 So.3d 913, 914 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); Adkins v. State, 183 So.3d 1102, 1103 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of Hagan’s request for jail credit without prejudice to his filing a legally sufficient rule 3.801 motion within sixty days of mandate.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
LaRÓSE and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Darion Johnson v. State, 256 So. 3d 208 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
-
Barnett v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…ling 2,692 [sic] days." The corrected sentence, however, awarded him only 2687 days of jail credit. We therefore remand for the entry of an amended sentence reflecting the 2692 days of jail credit awarded by the trial court. See Hagan v. State, 193 So. 3d 1008, 1009 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). In summary, because Barnett's convictions for first-degree felony murder and aggravated battery on a law enforcement officer violate double jeopardy, we reverse and remand with instructions for the trial court to vacate B…
-
Darion Johnson v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Adkins v. State, 183 So. 3d 1102 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)
- Maldonado v. State, 145 So. 3d 913 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)