Summary
holding that findings are required where statute, section 775.082, requires court to make written findings that a nonstate prison sanction would present a danger to the public
Summary of this case from Bailey v. StateOpinion
No. 4D14–3590.
04-27-2016
Telly Jon KNOTT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Alan T. Lipson, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and James J. Carney, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Alan T. Lipson, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and James J. Carney, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges his state prison sentence, where his Criminal Punishment Code sentencing score required a non-state prison sentence unless the court made written findings that such a sentence could present a danger to the public. See § 775.082(10), Fla. Stat. (2013). The trial court made the required findings at the sentencing hearing, but entered a written order only after appellant had filed a notice of appeal of the sentence, depriving the court of jurisdiction. Appellant thereafter moved to correct the sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), claiming that the sentence was illegal because the written findings were entered after the court lost jurisdiction. In denying this motion, a successor judge attached the previously-entered written findings to its order. We find that by accepting and attaching the written findings, the court fulfilled the statutory requirement, and appellant was not prejudiced. See Mandri v. State, 813 So.2d 65 (Fla.2002) (finding that failure to file written reasons was harmless error corrected by court filing written reasons in response to motion to correct sentence).
Affirmed.
CIKLIN, C.J., WARNER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.