Comtois v. State
| Decision Date | 07 January 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 5D03-1465.,5D03-1465. |
| Citation | 891 So.2d 1130 |
| Parties | Christopher COMTOIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Paula C. Coffman, Orlando, for Appellant.
James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Marvin F. Clegg, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Douglas T. Squire, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
The appellant, Christopher Comtois, who was convicted of a single count of lewd and lascivious exhibition, appeals his judgment and sentence. Although he raises a number of issues, only one, involving a discrepancy between his orally pronounced and written sentence, is meritorious.
When Mr. Comtois was being sentenced, the trial judge said at the conclusion of the hearing that the sentence imposed would consist of thirteen years, nine months in prison, less time served, followed by probation, and including certain other uncontested terms and conditions. In the written sentencing order that followed, however, the court indicated that the sentence would be fourteen years, nine months in prison, less time served, followed by probation. At a subsequent hearing Mr. Comtois asked the court to correct his sentence to that originally pronounced. The trial court declined, indicating essentially that his intent had been to sentence Mr. Comtois to the longest possible sentence, except for a short period of community based supervision, and that he simply misspoke at the sentencing hearing. While we understand the miscalculation, we conclude that the sentence as originally pronounced is the one that must be imposed.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.700(b) requires the "pronouncement" in open court of the sentence to be imposed, and the final disposition thereafter to be entered in the minutes of the court. The "pronouncement" becomes final when the sentencing hearing ends. See Farber v. State, 409 So.2d 71, 73 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
. See also Hickman v. State, 606 So.2d 435, 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). While Rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, authorizes a sentencing court to correct an illegal sentence, the rule does not permit the court to increase a legal and unambiguous sentence1 after the pronouncement becomes final, even if the orally pronounced sentence was based on mistake. See Farber. Here, the sentence was neither ambiguous, nor illegal. Since we find no ambiguity or illegality in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rodriguez v. State, No. 3D03-1084.
...(Once appellant began to serve his sentence, the court had no authority to resentence him to a longer prison term); Comtois v. State, 891 So.2d 1130 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)(rule which authorizes a sentencing court to correct an illegal sentence does not permit the court to increase a legal and ......
-
Thomas v. State
...legal, it cannot be changed through the rule 3.800(a) procedure. See Spain v. State, 849 So.2d 340 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Comtois v. State, 891 So.2d 1130 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Accordingly, because the trial court lacked authority to alter the sentence originally imposed, and thereby increase t......
-
Migdal v. State
...1259 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). A court's pronouncement of a sentence becomes final when the sentencing hearing ends. Comtois v. State, 891 So.2d 1130, 1131 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Troupe v. Rowe, 283 So.2d 857, 858 (Fla. 1973). "Once a sentence has been imposed and the person begins to serve the se......
-
Hagley v. State, 5D12–4195.
...of a sentence becomes final when the sentencing hearing ends. E.g., Troupe v. Rowe, 283 So.2d 857, 858 (Fla.1973); Comtois v. State, 891 So.2d 1130, 1131 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). “Once a sentence has been imposed and the person begins to serve the sentence, that sentence may not be increased wi......