Strickland v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Strickland v. State

56 So. 3d 906, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 3571, 2011 WL 917568

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 18, 2011

DocketNo. 5D11-18

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 56 So. 3d 906 (Strickland 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

Strickland v. State, 56 So. 3d 906, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 3571, 2011 WL 917568 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Strickland appeals from the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief. Although Strickland has designated his motion as being filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800, the trial court treated his motion as a rule 3.850 motion and denied same as untimely. We affirm, except as to Strickland’s claim that the trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence with regard to costs conflicted with the written judgment.

[907]*907The Florida Supreme Court has held that an alleged discrepancy between the orally pronounced sentence and the written judgment of sentence is cognizable in a Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. Williams v. State, 957 So.2d 600 (Fla.2007). The State concedes that, as to this issue, reversal is required because the trial court failed to attach documentation to its order conclusively refuting Strickland’s claim.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.

PALMER, TORPY and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

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