CURTIS KENDALL PERNELL, 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.
Defendant Pernell appealed the trial court's summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), arguing that a 2000 resentencing inadvertently increased his aggregate sentence from 60 to 70 years. The court reversed and remanded the claim regarding the discrepancy between the judge's oral pronouncement and the written sentencing order, but affirmed the denial of two other claims.
The court reversed the trial court's order denying the motion on the issue of the discrepancy between oral pronouncement and written order, finding this claim was cognizable under Rule 3.800(a) and had not been previously raised or adjudicated. The court remanded for consideration of the merits, while affirming the trial court's denial of two other claims.
[1] A claim that a written sentencing order deviates from the court's oral pronouncement is cognizable under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
[2] A trial court errs in denying a claim under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) on the theory that it has been previously adjudicated when the claim has not been…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The claim here is that the written sentencing order deviates from the court's oral pronouncement. Such a claim is cognizable under rule 3.800(a).”
Establishes that a discrepancy between oral pronouncement and written sentencing order is a proper basis for relief under Rule 3.800(a)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1997, Pernell was sentenced in sixteen pending criminal cases to concurrent 60-year sentences with shorter concurrent sentences in remaining cases …
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 Habitualization cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal of an order summarily denying a motion to correct illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The first claim of defendant-appellant Curtis Kendall Pernell is that as a result of a resentencing in 2000, the trial court inadvertently increased his aggregate sentence length from sixty years to seventy years. The trial court denied the claim on the theory that it had been previously adjudicated. The defendant has appealed.
By way of background, in 1997, the defendant had sixteen pending criminal cases in the trial court. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the defendant was sentenced to concurrent sixty year sentences in a number of the cases, and shorter concurrent sentences in the remaining cases.
Thereafter the defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, and in 2000, the trial court granted partial relief. In three of the trial court cases, there had never been a notice of habitualization. As a result, the trial court resentenced the defendant to ten year sentences under the sentencing guidelines in those cases. The judge’s oral pronouncement made clear that the defendant’s aggregate sentence would remain sixty years.
Thereafter the Department of Corrections recalculated the defendant’s tentative release date. The Department concluded that as a result of the resentencing, the defendant’s aggregate sentence is now seventy years. The Department’s explanation to the defendant was that in two of the resentenced cases, the ten year sentences were now running consecutive, rather than concurrent.
The State’s response filed in this court acknowledges that this is a claim which the *780defendant has not previously raised and that the trial court erred in concluding that this particular claim had been previously adjudicated. The claim here is that the written sentencing order deviates from the court’s oral pronouncement. Such a claim is cognizable under rule 3.800(a). Williams v. State, 957 So.2d 600, 601 (Fla.2007). We therefore reverse the order now before us on this issue and remand for consideration of the merits of the claim.*
We affirm with regard to claims two and three.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.