Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Campbell v. State

Campbell v. State

718 So. 2d 886, 1998 WL 568347
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 9, 1998·No. 98-2136·Published·Cited by 21 cases

Opinion

718 So.2d 886 (1998)

David CAMPBELL, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 98-2136.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

September 9, 1998.

David Campbell, Belle Glade, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

David Campbell appeals the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence. We affirm the denial of relief on all grounds and write to explain our rejection of Campbell's claim that his written sentence is illegal because it does not conform with the oral pronouncement at his sentencing hearing.

In Gardner v. State, 707 So.2d 945 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), we held that a claim that a written sentence does not conform to the oral pronouncement cannot be raised in a motion to correct illegal sentence filed under rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Since that decision was published, the Florida Supreme Court explained the scope of rule 3.800(a) in State v. Mancino, 714 So.2d 429, 23 Fla. L. Weekly S301 (Fla. June 11, 1998). It is our conclusion that the Mancino decision does not require a different result.

In Mancino, the Supreme Court explained that "A sentence that patently fails to comport with statutory or constitutional limitations is by definition `illegal'." Id. at S303, at 433. The rule the oral pronouncement of the sentence that controls in the event of a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and the written sentence is found in the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, not the Florida Statutes or the state or federal constitutions. Fla. R. Crim. Pro. 3.700(1). If there was an error in Campbell's sentence, it was caused by noncompliance with a procedural rule, and therefore does not result in an "illegal sentence" under the Mancino definition.

*887 WARNER and FARMER, JJ., and GLICKSTEIN, HUGH S., Senior Judge, concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Campbell v. State, 718 So. 2d 886, 1998 WL 568347 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

718 So. 2d 886 (Campbell v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Smith v. State
71 So. 3d 246 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
Harris v. State
995 So. 2d 1128 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)
Saffold v. State
959 So. 2d 1247 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)
Williams v. State
957 So. 2d 600 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2007)
Museau v. State
953 So. 2d 40 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)
Wilbon v. State
944 So. 2d 397 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
Moreland v. State
944 So. 2d 485 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
Baker v. State
933 So. 2d 720 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
Rogers v. State
916 So. 2d 899 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Williams v. State
913 So. 2d 1239 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Janowski v. State
910 So. 2d 309 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Renaud v. State
901 So. 2d 1032 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Covell v. State
891 So. 2d 1132 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Perkins v. State
866 So. 2d 760 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)
Dunkley v. State
865 So. 2d 527 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
Rinderer v. State
857 So. 2d 955 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
N.C. v. Anderson
837 So. 2d 425 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
Luckey v. State
811 So. 2d 802 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
Higgins v. State
737 So. 2d 559 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
Donald v. State
731 So. 2d 824 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)