BREANNA LEANNA JACKSON, DOC #T82109, 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 reversed the summary denial of Jackson's motion to correct an illegal sentence and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to resolve the dispute between the written sentence and the trial court's oral pronouncement.
When a postconviction motion alleges a discrepancy between the written sentence and the trial court's oral pronouncement, an evidentiary hearing must be conducted to resolve the factual dispute rather than summary denial.
[1] When a postconviction motion alleges a discrepancy between a written sentence and the trial court's oral pronouncement, the trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearin…
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 intelligence“such postconviction disputes can be resolved only after an evidentiary hearing”
The court explained that factual questions regarding the trial court's oral pronouncement cannot be resolved summarily but require an evidentiary hearing.
Breanna Jackson filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), arguing that her written sentence did…
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 Correction Of Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
Breanna Leanna Jackson appeals- the summary denial of her motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), in which- she argued that her sentence was illegal because the written sentence did not conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement at sentencing.
In light of the State’s concession and this court’s decision in Blocker v. State, 968 So.2d 686 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), we *349reverse and remand for consideration of Jackson’s motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Brantley v. State, 32 So.3d 89, 90 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (noting that the time to seek relief under rule 3.850 had- not yet run and that the motion contained the oath required by the rule). As we explained in Blocker, although the evidence that the postconviction court cited in its order denying Jackson’s rule 3.800(a) motion provided a reasonable basis to conclude that a factual question existed with regard to the trial court’s oral pronouncement, “such postconviction disputes can be resolved only after an evidentiary hearing.” Blocker, 968 So.2d at 693-94; see also Brantley, 32 So.3d at 90 (stating that “[a] careful examination of the record reveals a reasonable basis to question the accuracy of the transcript of the sentencing hearing, thus creating a disputed issue of fact” and, therefore, remanding for consideration pursuant to rule 3.860). Accordingly, on remand, the postconviction court shall conduct an evidentiary hearing to resolve the question.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
CASANUEVA, MORRIS, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur,
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jackson v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Hillsborough County) (M.D. Fla. 2020)
Authorities Cited
- Blocker v. State, 968 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- Brantley v. State, 32 So. 3d 89 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)