Summary
In Gardner v. State, 707 So.2d 945 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), we held that a claim that a written sentence does not conform to the oral pronouncement cannot be raised in a motion to correct illegal sentence filed under rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Since that decision was published, the Florida Supreme Court explained the scope of rule 3.800(a) in State v. Mancino, 714 So.2d 429, 23 Fla. L. Weekly S301 (Fla. June 11, 1998). It is our conclusion that the Mancino decision does not require a different result.
Summary of this case from Campbell v. StateOpinion
Case No. 97-4322
Opinion filed March 18, 1998. JANUARY TERM 1998
Appeal of order denying rule 3.800(a) motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Barry E. Goldstein, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 89-23998 CF10, 92-16660 CF10, 92-18119 CF10, 92-18120 CF10, 92-18302 CF10, 92-19445 CF10.
Kenneth Gardner, Clermont, pro se.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Barbra Amron Weisberg, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Appellant Kenneth Gardner timely appeals the denial of a motion in which he claimed that his written sentences did not conform to the oral pronouncements. Because his motion was filed more than two years after his sentence became final, if he is to obtain any relief, it must be pursuant to rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.
We affirm the trial court's decision because the alleged error would not result in an illegal sentence. The Florida Supreme Court has limited rule 3.800(a) relief to sentences that exceed the maximum allowed by law. King v. State, 681 So.2d 1136, 1140 (Fla. 1996); Davis v. State, 661 So.2d 1193 (Fla. 1995). The written sentences in Gardner's case do not exceed the maximum punishments permitted for his offenses.
AFFIRMED.
DELL, FARMER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.