Museau v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Museau v. State

953 So. 2d 40, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 4513, 2007 WL 909971

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 28, 2007

DocketNo. 4D07-198

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 953 So. 2d 40 (Museau 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

Museau v. State, 953 So. 2d 40, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 4513, 2007 WL 909971 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Antoine Museau appeals the denial of his rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. We affirm all points, but note that, within his first issue, he claims a discrepancy between the written sentence and oral pronouncement. This court has held that the claim is not cognizable through a rule 3.800(a) motion. See Campbell v. State, 718 So.2d 886 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Museau’s motion was not sworn.

Consequently, we affirm the denial of relief, but without prejudice to Museau seeking relief pursuant to rule 3.850, if time allows. See Moreland v. State, 944 So.2d 485 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Wilbon v. State, 944 So.2d 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Renaud v. State, 901 So.2d 1032 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), review dismissed, 926 So.2d 1241 (Fla.2006); see also Covell v. State, 891 So.2d 1132 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). As in Wilbon, we certify conflict with Fitzpatrick v. State, 863 So.2d 462 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004), and Berthiaume v. State, 864 So.2d 1257 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). See 944 So.2d at 397 (on rehearing).

STEVENSON, C.J., GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Antoine Museau appeals the denial of his rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. We affirm all points, but note that, within his first issue, he claims a discrepancy between the written sentence and oral pronouncement. This court has held that the claim is not cognizable through a rule 3.800(a) motion. See Campbell v. State, 718 So.2d 886 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Museau’s motion was not sworn.

Consequently, we affirm the denial of relief, but without prejudice to Museau seeking relief pursuant to rule 3.850, if time allows. See Moreland v. State, 944 So.2d 485 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Wilbon v. State, 944 So.2d 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Renaud v. State, 901 So.2d 1032 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), review dismissed, 926 So.2d 1241 (Fla.2006); see also Covell v. State, 891 So.2d 1132 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). As in Wilbon, we certify conflict with Fitzpatrick v. State, 863 So.2d 462 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004), and Berthiaume v. State, 864 So.2d 1257 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). See 944 So.2d at 397 (on rehearing).

STEVENSON, C.J., GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

953 So. 2d 40, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 4513, 2007 WL 909971, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/museau-v-state-fladistctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack