Mobley v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mobley v. State

163 So. 3d 1250, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 7283, 2015 WL 2259253

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 15, 2015

DocketNo. 5D14-3949

StatusPublished

This text of 163 So. 3d 1250 (Mobley 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

Mobley v. State, 163 So. 3d 1250, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 7283, 2015 WL 2259253 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

WALLIS, J.

Appellant appeals the summary denial of his amended motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, alleging discrepancies between the oral pronouncement and written documentation of his sentence. The trial court unambiguously awarded Appellant credit for “time originally served” during the oral pronouncement. However, ' Appellant’s written sentence does not address the enti[1251]*1251tlement to prison credit. The. oral pronouncement controls. Conley v. State, 146 So.3d 1266 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014). We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to amend the written sentence to include Appellant’s entitlement' to prison credit.

Appellant’s second ground for relief concerns a discrepancy regarding his designation at sentencing. The trial court orally pronounced Appellant as a “violent felony offender of special concern.” The written sentence inaccurately designates Appellant as a “habitual violent felony offender.” We remand for the trial court to correct this error and enter a sentence consistent with the oral pronouncement.

Appellant’s remaining grounds on appeal are without merit.

AFFIRMED in Part; REVERSED in Part; and REMANDED with Instructions.

SAWAYA and COHEN, JJ„ concur.

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

WALLIS, J.

Appellant appeals the summary denial of his amended motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, alleging discrepancies between the oral pronouncement and written documentation of his sentence. The trial court unambiguously awarded Appellant credit for “time originally served” during the oral pronouncement. However, ' Appellant’s written sentence does not address the enti[1251]*1251tlement to prison credit. The. oral pronouncement controls. Conley v. State, 146 So.3d 1266 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014). We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to amend the written sentence to include Appellant’s entitlement' to prison credit.

Appellant’s second ground for relief concerns a discrepancy regarding his designation at sentencing. The trial court orally pronounced Appellant as a “violent felony offender of special concern.” The written sentence inaccurately designates Appellant as a “habitual violent felony offender.” We remand for the trial court to correct this error and enter a sentence consistent with the oral pronouncement.

Appellant’s remaining grounds on appeal are without merit.

AFFIRMED in Part; REVERSED in Part; and REMANDED with Instructions.

SAWAYA and COHEN, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 So. 3d 1250, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 7283, 2015 WL 2259253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mobley-v-state-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack