Gardner v. State
This text of 707 So. 2d 945 (Gardner v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Kenneth GARDNER, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Kenneth Gardner, Clermont, pro se.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Barbra Amron Weisberg, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Kenneth Gardner timely appeals the denial of a motion in which he claimed that his written sentences did not conform to the oral pronouncements. Because his motion was filed more than two years after his sentence became final, if he is to obtain any relief, it must be pursuant to rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.
We affirm the trial court's decision because the alleged error would not result in an illegal sentence. The Florida Supreme *946 Court has limited rule 3.800(a) relief to sentences that exceed the maximum allowed by law. King v. State, 681 So.2d 1136, 1140 (Fla.1996); Davis v. State, 661 So.2d 1193 (Fla.1995). The written sentences in Gardner's case do not exceed the maximum punishments permitted for his offenses.
AFFIRMED.
DELL, FARMER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
707 So. 2d 945, 1998 WL 191168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gardner-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.