MITCHELL STUKEL
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Rule 3.800(a) is available to address discrepancies between an oral sentencing pronouncement and the written sentence, and while the circuit court erred in treating the motion as a Rule 3.850 motion, affirmance without prejudice is appropriate when the motion lacks the sentencing hearing transcript needed to adjudicate the claim.
[1] A circuit court errs when it treats a rule 3.800(a) motion as a rule 3.850 motion and dismisses it as untimely.
[2] Rule 3.800(a) is available to address an oral versus written sentencing disparity.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“rule 3.800(a) is available to address an oral versus written sentencing disparity”
Court explaining the proper rule for addressing sentencing pronunciation discrepancies
Mitchell Stukel filed a motion challenging a discrepancy between his oral sentencing pronouncement and written sentence. The circuit court treated the…
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 Sentencing Disparity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. The circuit court treated appellant’s rule 3.800(a) motion as a rule 3.850 motion and then dismissed it as untimely filed. The court erred in doing so because rule 3.800(a) is available to address an oral versus written sentencing disparity. See Williams v. State, 957 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2007).
Affirmance without prejudice is nonetheless appropriate because appellant’s motion failed to attach the sentencing hearing transcript, the portion of the record necessary to address the claim in his rule 3.800(a) motion. See Zill v. State, 162 So. 3d 83, 84 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (affirming denial of rule 3.800(a) motion claiming sentencing discrepancy without prejudice to appellant’s right to refile motion with supporting documentation of transcript and written sentences); see also Ayala-Laies v. State, 16 So. 3d 244 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).
We reject the state’s argument that there was no sentencing disparity here because there is no difference in this case between a statutory “life” sentence and a “natural life” sentence. See Holt v. State, 82 So. 3d 898,
899 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (recognizing that a sentence to natural life did not conform to the statutory sentence of life in prison with a 25-year mandatory minimum).
On remand, if appellant refiles the rule 3.800(a) motion, he is also entitled to be heard on his claim of failure to consider a scoresheet. See Paul v. State, 735 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). Affirmed without prejudice to appellant’s filing of an amended rule 3.800(a) motion. GERBER, C.J., GROSS and FORST, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mullins v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 957 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2007)
- Zill v. State, 162 So. 3d 83 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
- Bennith Paul v. State, 735 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Ayala-Laies v. State, 16 So. 3d 244 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
- Holt v. State, 82 So. 3d 898 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)