Michael Darrin Zill v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Michael Darrin Zill v. State

162 So. 3d 83, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 15252, 2014 WL 4840666

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 1, 2014

Docket4D14-1589

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 162 So. 3d 83 (Michael Darrin Zill 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

Michael Darrin Zill v. State, 162 So. 3d 83, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 15252, 2014 WL 4840666 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Michael Zill appeals the denial of a rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence. His motion raised two claims: an error in his credit for time served and a discrepancy between the written sentence and the oral pronouncement.

Zill’s rule 3.800(a) motion was filed after the effective date of rule 3.801, which applies to correction of jail credit. His motion was not under oath and did not include the content required by rule 3.801(c). The time for him to file a rule 3.801 motion expired on July 1, 2014. We affirm the denial of this portion of the order.

In his second claim Zill alleged that contrary to the court’s oral pronouncement, the written sentence indicates that count II runs consecutively to count III, not just consecutively to count I. He alleged the court orally pronounced a total sentence of eight years and the discrepancy in the written sentence is causing him to serve nine years. Zill did not provide copies of the written sentences and the sentencing transcript to support his claim. In a rule 3.800(a) motion, the burden is on the defendant to demonstrate entitlement to relief. Johnson v. State, 60 So.3d 1045 (Fla.2011); Casteel v. State, 141 So.3d 624 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). Accordingly, we affirm the denial of this claim without prejudice for Zill to refile his motion with supporting documentation.

Affirmed.

WARNER, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Michael Zill appeals the denial of a rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence. His motion raised two claims: an error in his credit for time served and a discrepancy between the written sentence and the oral pronouncement.

Zill’s rule 3.800(a) motion was filed after the effective date of rule 3.801, which applies to correction of jail credit. His motion was not under oath and did not include the content required by rule 3.801(c). The time for him to file a rule 3.801 motion expired on July 1, 2014. We affirm the denial of this portion of the order.

In his second claim Zill alleged that contrary to the court’s oral pronouncement, the written sentence indicates that count II runs consecutively to count III, not just consecutively to count I. He alleged the court orally pronounced a total sentence of eight years and the discrepancy in the written sentence is causing him to serve nine years. Zill did not provide copies of the written sentences and the sentencing transcript to support his claim. In a rule 3.800(a) motion, the burden is on the defendant to demonstrate entitlement to relief. Johnson v. State, 60 So.3d 1045 (Fla.2011); Casteel v. State, 141 So.3d 624 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). Accordingly, we affirm the denial of this claim without prejudice for Zill to refile his motion with supporting documentation.

Affirmed.

WARNER, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 So. 3d 83, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 15252, 2014 WL 4840666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-darrin-zill-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack