DENTARIO WHITE, 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 appellate court reversed and remanded because the trial court denied a Rule 3.800(a) motion for sentence clarification without attaching documentary evidence conclusively refuting the appellant's claim that probation was imposed.
When denying a Rule 3.800(a) motion challenging a sentence, the trial court must attach portions of the record conclusively refuting the defendant's claim.
[1] Trial court denying a Rule 3.800(a) motion must attach portions of the record conclusively refuting the defendant's claim or grant relief.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant sought clarification of his sentence, claiming the trial court failed to impose two years of probation following 41.1 months of incarcer…
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 Clarification Of Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant has filed a motion seeking clarification of his sentence, which this Court will treat as a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The appellant argues that the sentencing court did not impose two years of probation to follow the 41.1 months of incarceration that both the appellant and the court agree was to be imposed. The lower court has rendered an order which states that in March 2010 when the court sentenced the appellant it did impose two years of probation to follow the 41.1 months of imprisonment. However, the court has not attached either the portion of the sentencing hearing transcript or the judgment and sentence, or any other portion of the record, which conclusively refutes the appellant’s claim.
We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to either attach documentation conclusively refuting the appellant’s claim or to grant him relief. See, e.g., Moore v. State, 17 So.3d 878 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (citing Corp v. State, 698 So.2d 1349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (‘“when denying a cognizable 3.800(a) claim, the trial court must attach portions of the record conclusively refuting that claim’ ”)).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
BENTON, C.J., VAN NORTWICK, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miller v. State, 177 So. 3d 95 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…g versions of the guidelines prevailed). The postconviction court shall attach to its order deciding Miller’s motion copies of those portions of the sentencing court record upon which it relies in reaching its decision. See generally White v. State, 72 So. 3d 802, 802 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Reversed; remanded with instructions. MORRIS and BLACK, JJ., concur. . The versions of section 775.082(3)(c) in effect when Miller alleges the offenses occurred range from 1988 to 1995. The statutory maximum for second-d…
-
Covington v. State, 117 So. 3d 453 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…PER CURIAM. DISMISSED. Vreeland v. State, 72 So. 3d 802 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Cf. Henderson v. State, 919 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). WOLF, ROBERTS, and RAY, JJ., concur.…
-
Nino Chet Tartarini v. State, 225 So. 3d 925 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…PER CURIAM. DISMISSED. Vreeland v. State, 72 So. 3d 802 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). WOLF, OSTERHAUS, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.…
Authorities Cited
- Melville Joseph Corp v. State, 698 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Moore v. State, 17 So. 3d 878 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)