LEE SLOPPY, 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.
Lee Sloppy appealed the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that his written sentences did not reflect the trial court's oral pronouncements at sentencing. The court reversed and remanded because the postconviction court failed to address his first claim, which the State conceded was error and which was facially sufficient as the written sentence imposed an illegal fifteen-year PRR sentence for failure to appear, which exceeded the statutory maximum and was unavailable for that offense.
The court held that Sloppy presented a facially sufficient claim that his sentence was illegal because the written sentence imposed a fifteen-year PRR sentence for failure to appear, which exceeds the statutory maximum of five years and is not a permissible sentencing option for that offense. The oral pronouncement of sentence controls over the written sentence, and the discrepancy between them is a valid basis for an illegal sentence claim.
[1] A written sentence that does not reflect the trial court's oral pronouncement constitutes an illegal sentence.
[2] A sentence exceeding the statutory maximum for a particular offense is an illegal sentence.
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“A sentence that patently fails to comport with statutory or constitutional limitations is by definition 'illegal.'”
Establishes the legal standard for what constitutes an illegal sentence under Rule 3.800(a).
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn June 27, 2014, Sloppy pleaded guilty to burglary and failure to appear. The written sentences reflected a fifteen-year PRR sentence for both charge…
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 Written Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
Lee Sloppy appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). He raises two claims, arguing in both that his written sentences do not reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncements at sentencing. The posteonviction court summarily denied his motion, but in doing so it only addressed the second of the two claims, apparently overlooking the first.1 Although we affirm the denial of the second claim without discussion, we reverse the denial of the motion and remand for the court to consider Mr. Sloppy’s first claim, which the record indicates is facially sufficient and for which the State has conceded error.
On June 27, 2014, Mr. Sloppy pleaded guilty to one count of burglary and one count of failure to appear. The written sentences reflect that the trial court sentenced Mr. Sloppy to fifteen years’ imprisonment as a prison releasee reoffender *314(PRR) for both charges, -with the sentences to run concurrently. However, the trial court’s oral pronouncement was that “[fit’s day-to-day on the burglary, [and] a concurrent five on the FTA.” Later in the hearing, the trial court again addressed the sentence for the failure to appear and stated, “[adjudicate, five years Department of Corrections, concurrent” to the fifteen years for the burglary. The trial court also noted that Mr. Sloppy was not sentenced as a PRR on the failure to appear, saying, “I don’t need to habitualize him on [the failure to appear] because he’s getting the fifteen PRR [on the burglary].”
Additionally, a fifteen-year sentence for failure to appear exceeds the statutory maximum. Failure to appear is a third-degree felony, § 843.15(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2014), punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment. § 775.082(3)(e), Fla. Stat. (2014). Failure to appear is also not a felony for which the State may seek a PRR sentence. § 775.082(9)(a)(l). Therefore, Mr. Sloppy has presented a facially sufficient claim that his sentence is illegal. See Plott v. State, 148 So.3d 90, 94 (Fla. 2014) (“[A] sentence that patently fails to comport with statutory or constitutional limitations is by definition ‘illegal.’ ” (quoting State v. Mancino, 714 So.2d 429, 433 (Fla. 1998))); King v. State, 86 So.3d 1247, 1248 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (“The discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and written sentence is a valid basis for an illegal sentence claim under rule 3.800(a).”); Blocker v. State, 968 So.2d 686, 691 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (“It has long been the law that the oral pronouncement of sentence controls over a written sentence.”).
Because the postconviction court did not consider this claim when it denied Mr. Sloppy’s motion, we are compelled to reverse and remand for the postconviction court to address it. See Ferguson v. State, 778 So.2d 387, 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (reversing and remanding for reconsideration when the postconviction court failed to address a facially sufficient claim that the written sentence did not comport with the oral pronouncement).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
CASANUEVA, LaROSE, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Whited v. Fla. Comm'n on Offender Review, 296 So. 3d 557 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…ent that this court would "ordinarily" reverse and remand for the circuit court to hold a hearing as an - 6 - assertion of a procedural due process argument. We acknowledge that pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed. See Sloppy v. State, 208 So. 3d 313, 313 n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). But isolated, perfunctory references, vague comments, and conclusory statements are not sufficient to raise an issue for appellate review. See, e.g., Victorino, 23 So. 3d at 103 (rejecting appellant's due process argum…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1998)
- Plott v. State, 148 So. 3d 90 (Fla. 2014)
- Blocker v. State, 968 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- Tillman v. State, 287 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- Ferguson v. State, 778 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- King v. State, 86 So. 3d 1247 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)