Khan v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Khan v. State

165 So. 3d 855, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 8917, 2015 WL 3631643

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 12, 2015

DocketNo. 5D13-4183

StatusPublished

This text of 165 So. 3d 855 (Khan 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.

Bluebook

Khan v. State, 165 So. 3d 855, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 8917, 2015 WL 3631643 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals the order revoking his probation and sentencing him to thirty months in the Department of Corrections. We affirm as to all issues raised, but note that the sentencing order contains a finding that Appellant was a danger to the community under section 948.06(8)(e)2.a., Florida Statutes (2013). However, the trial court failed to orally make this finding, so the written sentencing order does not conform to the oral pronouncement of sentence. Unfortunately, Appellant did not object or raise this error in a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b). As the court explained in Daniels v. State, 118 So.3d 996, 997 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013):

The problem is, however, that we cannot review the appellant’s unpreserved sentencing error claims on the merits. See Craighead v. State, 36 So.3d 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (quoting Jackson v. State, 983 So.2d 562, 569 (Fla.2008)). Claims that the written judgment and sentence do not conform to the oral pronouncement must be preserved either with a contemporaneous objection, if possible, or by filing a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion before filing the initial brief. See Jackson, 983 So.2d at 572 (noting that sentencing errors subject to Rule 3.800(b)(2) include written orders that deviate from the oral pronouncement); Evans v. State, 895 So.2d 1292, 1292-93 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (holding that absent contemporaneous objection or Rule 3.800(b)(2) motion, error in non-conforming written sentence and order of probation to oral pronouncement was not preserved for direct appeal). Burney v. State, 114 So.3d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (holding that absent contemporaneous objection or Rule 3.800(b)(2) motion, error in non-conforming written revocation of probation to oral pronouncement was unpreserved for direct appeal, citing Evans, 895 So.2d 1292). In this case, the appellant concedes the issue was not preserved during sentencing by contemporaneous objection. Likewise, neither the appellant nor the state filed a notice of a pending Rule 3.800(b)(2) motion in this Court prior to the appellant’s filing his initial brief.

Accordingly, we affirm the order under review without prejudice to Appellant’s ability to raise the sentencing error in an appropriate post-conviction motion. Id. at 998.

AFFIRMED without prejudice.

SAWAYA, EVANDER and COHEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals the order revoking his probation and sentencing him to thirty months in the Department of Corrections. We affirm as to all issues raised, but note that the sentencing order contains a finding that Appellant was a danger to the community under section 948.06(8)(e)2.a., Florida Statutes (2013). However, the trial court failed to orally make this finding, so the written sentencing order does not conform to the oral pronouncement of sentence. Unfortunately, Appellant did not object or raise this error in a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b). As the court explained in Daniels v. State, 118 So.3d 996, 997 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013):

The problem is, however, that we cannot review the appellant’s unpreserved sentencing error claims on the merits. See Craighead v. State, 36 So.3d 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (quoting Jackson v. State, 983 So.2d 562, 569 (Fla.2008)). Claims that the written judgment and sentence do not conform to the oral pronouncement must be preserved either with a contemporaneous objection, if possible, or by filing a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion before filing the initial brief. See Jackson, 983 So.2d at 572 (noting that sentencing errors subject to Rule 3.800(b)(2) include written orders that deviate from the oral pronouncement); Evans v. State, 895 So.2d 1292, 1292-93 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (holding that absent contemporaneous objection or Rule 3.800(b)(2) motion, error in non-conforming written sentence and order of probation to oral pronouncement was not preserved for direct appeal). Burney v. State, 114 So.3d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (holding that absent contemporaneous objection or Rule 3.800(b)(2) motion, error in non-conforming written revocation of probation to oral pronouncement was unpreserved for direct appeal, citing Evans, 895 So.2d 1292). In this case, the appellant concedes the issue was not preserved during sentencing by contemporaneous objection. Likewise, neither the appellant nor the state filed a notice of a pending Rule 3.800(b)(2) motion in this Court prior to the appellant’s filing his initial brief.

Accordingly, we affirm the order under review without prejudice to Appellant’s ability to raise the sentencing error in an appropriate post-conviction motion. Id. at 998.

AFFIRMED without prejudice.

SAWAYA, EVANDER and COHEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 So. 3d 855, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 8917, 2015 WL 3631643, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/khan-v-state-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack