ALTEREQUE L. BAKER, APPELLANT,
v.
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 held that a written sentence exceeding the oral pronouncement is an illegal sentence and can be corrected, potentially by treating a rule 3.800(a) motion as a rule 3.850 motion.
Appellant challenged his sentence for aggravated assault with a firearm, arguing the written sentence exceeded the statutory maximum for the offense. …
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 Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Altereque Baker appeals the denial of his rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence. Appellant argued in part that his sentence for aggravated assault with a firearm was illegal because it exceeded the statutory maximum for a third-degree felony.
In response to an order from this court, the state points out that at the plea hearing, the trial court orally sentenced appellant to the statutory maximum for this offense. The written sentence does not conform to the oral pronouncement.
The state suggests appellant’s only remedy is to file a rule 3.850 motion because this court has held that this type of sentencing error cannot be raised in a rule 3.800(a) motion. Campbell v. State, 718 So. 2d 886 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). But, unless it is corrected, the written sentence is an illegal sentence that exceeds the statutory maximum. Even if this error could not be corrected in a rule 3.800(a) motion, appellant’s motion could be treated as a rule 3.850 motion because it was under oath and filed within two years after his convictions and sentences became final. See Rinderer v. State, 857 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to correct the written sentence on count seven so that it conforms to the sentence orally imposed. The denial of appellant’s remaining claim is affirmed.
GUNTHER, FARMER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Donaldson v. State, 985 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…claim of improper sentencing in absentia raised in a rule 3.850 motion). Because Mr. Donaldson’s motion was properly sworn and was filed within the time limitations of rule 3.850, we treat his motion as if filed under rule 3.850. See Baker v. State, 933 So. 2d 720, 721 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). A criminal defendant’s presence is required “at any stage of the criminal proceeding that is critical to its outcome if [the defendant’s] presence would contribute to the fairness of the procedure.” Kentucky v. Stincer, 48…
Authorities Cited
- Campbell v. State, 718 So. 2d 886 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Rinderer v. State, 857 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)