Telly Jon Knott v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Telly Jon Knott v. State of Florida

190 So. 3d 222, 2016 WL 1696199, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 6425

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 27, 2016

Docket4D14-3590

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 190 So. 3d 222 (Telly Jon Knott v. State of Florida) 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

Telly Jon Knott v. State of Florida, 190 So. 3d 222, 2016 WL 1696199, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 6425 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges his state prison sentence, where his Criminal Punishment Code sentencing score required a non-state prison sentence unless the court made written findings that such a sentence could present a danger to the public. See § 775.082(10), Fla. Stat. (2013). The trial court made the required findings at the sentencing hearing, but' entered a written order only after appellant had filed a notice of appeal of the sentence, depriving the court of jurisdiction. Appellant thereafter moved to correct the sentence under Florida Rule- of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), claiming that the sentence was illegal because the written findings were entered after the eotirt lost jurisdiction. In denying this motion, a successor judge attached the previously-entered written findings to its order. We find that by accepting and attaching the written findings, the court fulfilled the statutory requirement, and appellant was not prejudiced. See Mandri v. State, 813 So.2d 65 (Fla.2002) (finding that failure to file written reasons was harmless error corrected by court filing written reasons in response to motion to correct sentence).

Affirmed.

‘ CIKLIN, C.J., WARNER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges his state prison sentence, where his Criminal Punishment Code sentencing score required a non-state prison sentence unless the court made written findings that such a sentence could present a danger to the public. See § 775.082(10), Fla. Stat. (2013). The trial court made the required findings at the sentencing hearing, but' entered a written order only after appellant had filed a notice of appeal of the sentence, depriving the court of jurisdiction. Appellant thereafter moved to correct the sentence under Florida Rule- of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), claiming that the sentence was illegal because the written findings were entered after the eotirt lost jurisdiction. In denying this motion, a successor judge attached the previously-entered written findings to its order. We find that by accepting and attaching the written findings, the court fulfilled the statutory requirement, and appellant was not prejudiced. See Mandri v. State, 813 So.2d 65 (Fla.2002) (finding that failure to file written reasons was harmless error corrected by court filing written reasons in response to motion to correct sentence).

Affirmed.

‘ CIKLIN, C.J., WARNER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 So. 3d 222, 2016 WL 1696199, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 6425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/telly-jon-knott-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack