Platt v. State, 95-02764
| Citation | 664 So.2d 307 |
| Decision Date | 06 December 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-02764,95-02764 |
| Parties | 20 Fla. L. Weekly D2695 Raymond PLATT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Raymond Platt, pro se.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Ron Napolitano, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
Raymond Platt appeals the summary denial of his unsworn motion for clarification of sentence. The trial court properly denied the motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm the denial without prejudice to Mr. Platt filing a timely rule 3.850 motion.
On June 19, 1992, Mr. Platt was sentenced for numerous felonies, primarily burglaries of structures. These sentences involved both new 1992 offenses and violations of probation on 1989 and 1990 offenses. The trial court sentenced Mr. Platt to prison for the 1989 and 1990 offenses, and to consecutive probation on the 1992 offenses.
On April 20, 1993, the Control Release Authority of the Florida Parole Commission placed Mr. Platt on ten years' control release supervision for the 1989 and 1990 offenses. The control release supervision and the probation for the 1992 offenses were served concurrently. In August 1994, the state filed an affidavit of violation of probation, alleging technical violations, but no new offenses.
At a hearing on October 31, 1994, Mr. Platt admitted the technical violations. During the hearing, his attorney requested a jail sentence for his client, and the assistant state attorney estimated that the sentence should be approximately ten years. After accurately commenting several times that the file was extremely complicated, the trial court imposed two consecutive five-year terms and a consecutive two-year term of incarceration on the 1992 offenses. At the conclusion of the hearing, Mr. Platt pointed out that the court had not resolved his control release violations for the 1989 and 1990 offenses. The trial court explained that control release was not its responsibility.
When Mr. Platt returned to prison, the Control Release Authority vacated his release on the earlier offenses. Because the trial court had not expressly stated an intention for its sentences to run concurrently with any other sentences, the Department of Corrections (DOC) has elected to make the sentences on the 1992 offenses consecutive to the sentences imposed for the 1989 and 1990 offenses. This results in a total...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Larson v. State
...We conclude that it is. Preliminarily, we note that this issue is cognizable in a rule 3.850 motion. See, e.g., Platt v. State, 664 So.2d 307, 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (affirming denial of rule 3.800(a) motion without prejudice to the filing of a rule 3.850 motion raising the issue of consecu......
-
Donaldson v. State
...A. Donaldson's ability to file a timely and proper motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Platt v. State, 664 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Lee v. State, 754 So.2d 74 (Fla. 4th DCA THREADGILL, A.C.J., and BLUE and GREEN, JJ., Concur. ...