MICHAEL WAYNE NELSON, 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 reversed and remanded a denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence because the trial court failed to adequately address whether a sentencing transcript existed that could show a discrepancy between oral pronouncement and written sentence.
When a defendant moves to correct an illegal sentence alleging a conflict between oral pronouncement and written sentence, the trial court must determine whether a sentencing transcript exists in the record and, if not, allow the defendant to file an amended motion with the transcript.
[1] When a defendant alleges a conflict between oral pronouncement and written sentence in a motion to correct illegal sentence, the trial court must determine whether a sent…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“On remand, the trial court shall determine whether the written sentence conforms to the oral pronouncement. If they do, the trial court shall attach written portions of the record conclusively refuting Mallon's claim.”
The court cited Mallon v. State for the proper procedure on remand, requiring the trial court to determine conformity and attach refuting record portions if applicable.
Nelson appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), alleging that the trial cou…
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 Sentencing Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
Michael Wayne Nelson (“Appellant”) appeals the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Appellant contends that the trial court’s oral pronouncement of his sentence conflicts with the written sentence.
Appellant alleges in his motion that the trial court erred in failing to attach a copy of the transcript of the sentencing hearing, suggesting that transcripts do exist. However, it appears, that the trial court based its denial of Appellant’s motion upon court minutes. Other than Appellant’s allegation in his motion, there is no indication whether a transcript of the hearing exists that would show whether there was a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and the written sentence. If a transcript is not filed in the record in the trial court, it Is possible, as Appellant seems to allege, that he may have a transcript that was not filed. Therefore, we reverse the order under review and remand this case to the trial court. See Mallon v. State, 939 So.2d 198, 199 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (“On remand, the trial court shall determine whether the written sentence conforms to the oral pronouncement. If they do, the trial court shall attach written portions of the record conclusively refuting Mallon’s claim.”). If the trial court concludes that the sentencing transcript is not in the record and denies relief, it should do so without prejudice to Appellant filing an amended motion attaching the transcript if one exists.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
SAWAYA, WALLIS, and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Reininger, 254 So. 3d 996 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Mallon v. State, 939 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)