A.J. JAMES, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the denial of postconviction relief but remanded for correction of a sentencing error.
Appellant sought postconviction relief, which was summarily denied. The State conceded that the written sentencing order incorrectly stated the habitu…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Written Sentencing Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, A.J. James, appeals from an order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief made pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.800 and 3.850, and an order denying his Motion for Rehearing and Clarification. Pursuant to rule 3.850,' the appellant’s petition is barred as untimely filed more than two years after his judgment and sentence became final.1 As a petition for correction of illegal sentence under rule 3.800, we observe that the sentence imposed is the maximum legal sentence authorized under the habitual offender statute for James’s offenses. § 775.084(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (1993). After reviewing the record on appeal, we find that the record conclusively establishes that the appellant is entitled to no posteonviction relief for his stated claims, and affirm the trial court’s summary denial of his motion without an evidentiary hearing.
However, the State has conceded that the record does show a sentencing error not raised by James. The State correctly provides that the trial court’s written sentencing order indicates that James was sentenced as an habitual violent offender, whereas the trial court orally pronounced that James was to be sentenced as an habitual offender. (Appendix C to State’s Response at p. 336). We therefore remand to the trial court for entry of a written order that conforms to the trial court’s oral pronouncements. Arnold v. State, 754 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)(oral pronouncement of sentence prevails over the written judgment and sentence form); Sconiers v. State, 734 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). In all other respects we affirm.
Affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part.
. The convictions and sentences were affirmed by this Court on July 19, 1995, and mandate issued August 4, 1995.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 789 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…d count, the trial court orally sentenced Appellant as a habitual felony offender, but not as a habitual violent felony offender. A written sentence may be challenged as not conforming to the oral one in a rule 3.850 proceeding. See James v. State, 763 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), rev. denied, 786 So. 2d 1186 (Fla.2001); Dukes v. State, 737 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Ricks v. State, 725 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), cause dismissed, [*1114] SC94,927, — So. 2d - (Fla. Feb. 25, 1999), and rev. denied,…
Authorities Cited
- Arnold v. State, 754 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Antuan Lawrence Sconiers v. State, 734 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)