Nelson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Nelson v. State

1 So. 3d 345, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 484, 2009 WL 161872

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 26, 2009

Docket1D08-3885

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1 So. 3d 345 (Nelson 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

Nelson v. State, 1 So. 3d 345, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 484, 2009 WL 161872 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges the trial court’s summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion, in which he claimed that his written sentence is greater than the sentence orally pronounced by the trial court. A written sentence must comport with the sentence that was orally pronounced, and when the two are inconsistent, the oral pronouncement controls. See Ashley v. State, 850 So.2d 1265, 1268 (Fla.2003). The trial court did not attach the transcript of the appellant’s sentencing hearing. Without the transcript, it is impossible to determine whether the appellant’s -written sentence indeed comports with that which was orally pronounced. See Cooley v. State, 901 So.2d 271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Graydon v. State, 647 So.2d 1080 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). We therefore reverse the order under review and remand this case for the trial court’s further consideration of the motion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ALLEN, VAN NORTWICK, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges the trial court’s summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion, in which he claimed that his written sentence is greater than the sentence orally pronounced by the trial court. A written sentence must comport with the sentence that was orally pronounced, and when the two are inconsistent, the oral pronouncement controls. See Ashley v. State, 850 So.2d 1265, 1268 (Fla.2003). The trial court did not attach the transcript of the appellant’s sentencing hearing. Without the transcript, it is impossible to determine whether the appellant’s -written sentence indeed comports with that which was orally pronounced. See Cooley v. State, 901 So.2d 271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Graydon v. State, 647 So.2d 1080 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). We therefore reverse the order under review and remand this case for the trial court’s further consideration of the motion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ALLEN, VAN NORTWICK, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 So. 3d 345, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 484, 2009 WL 161872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nelson-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack