From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Mar 28, 2001
793 So. 2d 25 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

Opinion

No. 2D00-4900.

Opinion filed March 28, 2001.

Appeal pursuant to Fla.R.App.P.9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Jack Espinosa, Jr., Judge.


Ralph Williams, Jr., appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for mandamus, which we treat as a denial of a motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800.

Williams alleged that his habitual offender sentence is illegal because although the written sentence indicates he was sentenced as a habitual offender, the trial court did not orally sentence him as a habitual offender. This claim is cognizable in a motion to correct illegal sentence. See Simon v. State, 26 Fla. L. Weekly D409, ___ So.2d ___, 2001 WL 98564 (Fla. 2d DCA Feb. 7, 2001). The trial court erred in denying Williams' petition without addressing this claim.

We reverse the trial court's order as it relates to Williams' claim that the written sentence did not conform to the oral pronouncement and remand for further proceedings. We affirm the trial court's order in all other respects.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

PARKER, A.C.J., and WHATLEY, J., Concur.


Summaries of

Williams v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Mar 28, 2001
793 So. 2d 25 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)
Case details for

Williams v. State

Case Details

Full title:RALPH WILLIAMS, JR., Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Mar 28, 2001

Citations

793 So. 2d 25 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

Citing Cases

Williams v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this…