Williams v. State

676 So. 2d 11, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 5920, 1996 WL 293800
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 5, 1996·No. No. 96-00795·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Derrick Tyrone Williams appeals the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We have jurisdiction. See Sellers v. State, 591 So.2d 331 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). We affirm the denial of Williams’ claim regarding consecutive minimum mandatory sentences. However, the trial court failed to address Williams’ claim that his sentences do not conform to the oral pronouncement at sentencing. Accordingly, as to this claim only, we reverse and remand with directions to the trial court to review the record and determine whether there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and the written sentences.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

THREADGILL, C.J., and BLUE and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.

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

Williams v. State, 676 So. 2d 11, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 5920, 1996 WL 293800 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

676 So. 2d 11 (Williams v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dawson/Knapp v. State
698 So. 2d 266 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)