EDSEL A. BROWN
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.
Appellant challenges the trial court's denial of his Rule 3.800(a) motion alleging a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of sentence (30 months with 20 months credit) and the written sentencing order (6.78 years). The postconviction court denied the motion without attaching the sentencing transcript to support its findings. The appellate court reverses because the postconviction court failed to attach the necessary sentencing record.
The court reversed and remanded the postconviction order because the trial court failed to attach the sentencing transcript or other supporting records to its order denying the Rule 3.800(a) motion. On remand, the trial court must locate the sentencing transcript and either grant relief if the discrepancy is established or deny the motion without prejudice to allow amendment with a proper sentencing transcript.
[1] A trial court's order denying a Rule 3.800(a) motion must be supported by attachment of the sentencing transcript or other relevant records to allow meaningful appellate…
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 intelligenceAppellant was sentenced on February 1, 2023, for violations of probation. The trial court orally pronounced a sentence of 30 months in the Department …
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
WALLIS, J.
Appellant appeals the trial court’s denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) Motion which alleged that his written sentence does not match the oral pronouncement. Appellant alleges that the trial court orally pronounced a sentence of 30 months in the Department of Corrections with credit for 20 months. Appellant’s written sentencing order states that his sentence is 6.78 years. The postconviction court entered an order denying the motion finding:
Defendant was sentenced on February 1, 2023[,] for violations of probation in the above numbered cases. This Court reviewed the recording of that proceeding. Judge Dawn Nichols accepted Defendant’s admission to violating his community control, revoked his supervision, and sentenced Defendant to the bottom of his scoresheet of 6.78 years with high[sic] credit of 821 days over State objection. The State was seeking 13 years in the Department of Corrections. Defendant’s claim that he was sentenced to 30 months has no merit.
The trial court attached no records to the order in support of its findings and ultimate ruling. Accordingly, we must reverse the order. See Lopez v. State, 2 So. 3d 1057, 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (holding reversal required where postconviction court’s findings not supported by attachment of sentencing transcript). “On remand, the trial court should examine the record for a sentencing transcript. If no transcript is found or is otherwise obtainable, the court should deny Appellant's Rule 3.800(a) motion on Ground (1) without prejudice to amend with a sentencing transcript demonstrating entitlement to relief.” Id.; see also Williams v. State, 957 So. 2d 600, 604 (Fla. 2007) (“[T]he motion should be denied without prejudice to the filing of an amended motion properly attaching the sentencing transcript.”).
REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.
HARRIS and PRATT, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 957 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2007)
- Lopez v. State, 2 So. 3d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)