From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Feb 11, 1998
705 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

Opinion

Case No. 97-03905.

Opinion filed February 11, 1998.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(i) from the Circuit Court for Pasco County; Stanley R. Mills, Judge.


BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Upon consideration it is ordered that this court's opinion dated December 31, 1997, is withdrawn. The attached opinion is hereby substituted therefor.


Billy Williams appeals the denial of his motion to correct sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The trial court denied the motion, finding that challenges to the appropriate credit for time served are not cognizable in such a proceeding. We affirm.

Williams was sentenced to prison followed by probation. After he violated probation, the court imposed a new prison sentence, and the issue he raised in his motion concerns credit for time spent earlier in prison on this newly imposed sentence. The trial court denied relief, reasoning that attacks on a trial court's determination of credit for time served may only be raised collaterally in a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, citing Ramos v. State, 697 So.2d 231 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), and Brown v. State, 700 So.2d 393 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Reliance on the foregoing cases, however, overlooks Swyck v. State, 693 So.2d 618 (Fla. 2d DCA), review granted, 699 So.2d 1376 (Fla. 1997), in which this court acknowledged conflict with three district courts of appeal adhering to the results in the cases cited by the trial judge.

Williams suggests in his motion that the sentencing court orally granted him credit for his earlier prison time but failed to enter a written order to that effect. The motion demands that the written order conform to the oral pronouncement.See Garcia v. State, 666 So.2d 245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). A determination of the substance of the oral pronouncement will generally not be of record, but will require the transcription of the proceedings. Accordingly, the trial court correctly determined that this matter may only be resolved by resort to rule 3.850. See Thomas v. State, 611 So.2d 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).

Affirmed.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and FULMER, J., Concur.


Summaries of

Williams v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Feb 11, 1998
705 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)
Case details for

Williams v. State

Case Details

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

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Feb 11, 1998

Citations

705 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

Citing Cases

Williams v. State

The Second District reversed the order denying relief and directed the trial court to attach the portions of…

Williams v. State

The Second District reversed the order denying relief and directed the trial court to attach the portions of…