Summary
finding an oral pronouncement of jail credit on concurrent sentences inconsistent with a written sentence providing jail credit on only one count
Summary of this case from Blair v. StateOpinion
No. 1D18-3200
03-11-2020
Raheem MORRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
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.
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.
Per Curiam. 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) (vacating written portion of a sentence for inconsistency with oral pronouncement and remanding case for entry of a corrected version). 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 case for entry of a corrected version which conforms with the trial court's oral pronouncement and with Morris I .
The Motion to Correct Sentencing Error is treated as denied by operation of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(1)(B).
AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Wolf, Bilbrey, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.