From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Nov 9, 2005
913 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

Summary

In Williams, the Fourth District concluded that "a mere allegation of a difference between the oral pronouncement and the written judgment is insufficient to comply with [rule 3.800(a)]."

Summary of this case from Williams v. State

Opinion

No. 4D05-1537.

November 9, 2005.

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800(a) motion from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Richard I. Wennet, Judge; L.T. Case No. 99-3577 CFA02.

Daryl Williams, Miami, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.


On Motion for Rehearing


We withdraw our prior opinion and substitute the following in its place.

We affirm the denial of appellant's Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion, which claims that the written sentence does not conform to the court's oral pronouncement of the sentence. See Campbell v. State, 718 So.2d 886 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). In this case, appellant's unsworn motion stated that the judge orally sentenced appellant to eleven years but that his written judgment sentenced him to fourteen years seven months. No attachments, such as a transcript of the sentencing proceeding, were included. We certify conflict with Fitzpatrick v. State, 863 So.2d 462 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004), and Berthiaume v. State, 864 So.2d 1257 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).

Unlike Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(c), which requires a motion seeking postconviction relief to be under oath, there is no requirement under rule 3.800 that a motion be made under oath.

We also conclude that a mere allegation of a difference between the oral pronouncement and the written judgment is insufficient to comply with the rule. We certify conflict with Watts v. State, 790 So.2d 1175 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), as to the issue of whether a mere allegation that a written sentence does not comport with an oral pronouncement is sufficient to raise a rule 3.800(a) claim. We would also note that, unlike rule 3.850(d), rule 3.800(a) contains no requirement that the trial court attach portions of the record that conclusively refute the allegations of the motion.

WARNER, FARMER and MAY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Williams v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Nov 9, 2005
913 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

In Williams, the Fourth District concluded that "a mere allegation of a difference between the oral pronouncement and the written judgment is insufficient to comply with [rule 3.800(a)]."

Summary of this case from Williams v. State

In Williams, the Fourth District concluded that "a mere allegation of a difference between the oral pronouncement and the written judgment, is insufficient to comply with [rule 3.800(a)]."

Summary of this case from Williams v. State
Case details for

Williams v. State

Case Details

Full title:Daryl WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Nov 9, 2005

Citations

913 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

Citing Cases

Williams v. State

We have on appeal a decision of a district court of appeal that certifies conflict with decisions of the…

Williams v. State

We have on appeal a decision of a district court of appeal that certifies conflict with decisions of the…