Morris v. State
| Decision Date | 11 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 1D18-3200,1D18-3200 |
| Citation | 292 So.3d 838 |
| Parties | Raheem MORRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Victor Holder, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Barbara Debelius, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Raheem Morris raises three issues in this appeal of the trial court's denial of his "Motion to Correct Sentencing Error Under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) ;" the latter issues have been previously addressed by this Court in Morris v. State , 246 So. 3d 514 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) ( Morris I ) ; therefore, we affirm on those issues without further comment. We agree with Mr. Morris' first argument—that the written portion of the sentence is erroneous for failing to comport with the oral pronouncement and with Morris I —and vacate that portion of the sentence.
During Mr. Morris's resentencing hearing, the trial court announced that he would receive all jail credit to which he was entitled and sentenced him to thirty years per count, to run concurrently. However, the written sentence then provided for 462 days of credit "as to Count 2 only." As the State concedes, Mr. Morris's concurrent sentencing in this case means that he is entitled to the same credit on Count one as he is on Count two. See Daniels v. State , 491 So. 2d 543, 545 (Fla. 1986). Additionally, the written sentence incorrectly lists Count one as Armed Carjacking contrary to section 812.133(2)(a), Florida Statutes ; as determined in Morris I , Mr. Morris could only be convicted of simple Carjacking contrary to section 812.133(2)(b), Florida Statutes.
The issue of an alleged discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of a sentence and the written portion of said sentence is one cognizable in a rule 3.800 motion. Sullivan v. State , 971 So. 2d 269, 270 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). In such circumstances, the oral pronouncement of a sentence controls over the written sentence form. Id. ; Marshall v. State , 652 So. 2d 974, 974-75 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (). Thus, we agree with the parties that the trial court's denial of the Motion to Correct Sentencing Error was erroneous.* We vacate the written portion of the sentence to the extent that it is inconsistent with the oral pronouncement and remand the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blair v. State
...the oral pronouncement granted eight months’ probation and the written sentence reflected eight years); see also Morris v. State , 292 So. 3d 838, 839 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (finding an oral pronouncement of jail credit on concurrent sentences inconsistent with a written sentence providing jai......
-
Blair v. State
... ... See Marshall v. State, 78 So.3d 72, 73 (Fla ... 4th DCA 2012) (finding a discrepancy in the oral ... pronouncement and written sentence where the oral ... pronouncement granted eight months' probation and the ... written sentence reflected eight years); see also Morris ... v. State, 292 So.3d 838, 839 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) ... (finding an oral pronouncement of jail credit on concurrent ... sentences inconsistent with a written sentence providing jail ... credit on only one count). Thus, the award of 300 days of ... jail credit was a ... ...
-
Jones v. State, No. 1D19-1321
...sentence and remand for entry of a corrected sentence that conforms to the court's oral pronouncement. See, e.g., Morris v. State , 292 So. 3d 838, 839 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (vacating written sentence for inconsistency with oral pronouncement and remanding for entry of corrected sentence). In......
-
Post-conviction relief
...sentence when there is an alleged discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and the written portion of a sentence. Morris v. State, 292 So. 3d 838 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) Defendant was designated a sexual predator pursuant to a conviction for sexual activity with a minor. Defendant was arreste......