SAMANTHA MULLINS
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 appellate court affirmed the denial of a motion to clarify a sentence, but without prejudice. The appellant failed to provide necessary documentation to support her claim that the written sentence conflicted with the oral pronouncement.
Yes, a claim that a written sentence conflicts with an oral pronouncement can state a claim for relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). However, the appellant failed to provide the necessary documentation to support her claim.
[1] A petitioner seeking relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) for a conflict between written and oral pronouncement of sentence must include the relevant…
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“Appellant claims the written sentence conflicts with the oral pronouncement, which can state a claim for relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).”
Establishes the legal basis for the appellant's claim.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSamantha Mullins filed a petition for clarification of sentence, alleging that the written sentence conflicted with the oral pronouncement. The trial …
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 Clarification Of Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
SAMANTHA MULLINS,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
No. 4D19-2146
[October 10, 2019]
Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Robert E. Belanger, Judge; L.T. Case No. 562015CF001284A.
Samantha Mullins, Florida City, pro se. No appearance required for appellee. PER CURIAM. Samantha Mullins appeals from the trial court’s denial of her petition for clarification of sentence. We affirm without prejudice.
Appellant claims the written sentence conflicts with the oral pronouncement, which can state a claim for relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Stukel v. State, 251 So. 3d 193, 194 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). However, appellant did not attach the sentencing transcript or sentencing documents. Accordingly, we affirm without prejudice for appellant to file a rule 3.800(a) motion including the portions of the record necessary to address her claims. Id.
Affirmed without prejudice.
WARNER, MAY and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.