55 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2024 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences2024See Johnson v. State, 60 So. 3d 1045, 1050 (Fla. 2011) (“Under rule 3.800(a), ‘the burden [is on] the petitioner to demonstrate an entitlement to relief on the face of the record.’ The State accordingly has no burden to establish that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.”) (quoting Williams v. State, 957 So. 2d 600, 602 (Fla. 2007)); see also Lopez v. State, 2 So. 3d 1057, 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (“[A] defendant [may not] claim a sentence is illegal based on an alleged discrepancy between an oral pronouncement and a written sentence ... without a transcript of the sentencing hearing or ot 2014Although such a claim is cognizable under rule 3.800(a) if the sentencing error may be resolved as a matter of law by merely examining the face of the record, see Williams v. State, 957 So.2d 600, 603-04 (Fla.2007), the defendant has not provided us with a record to review. “[A] defendant [may not] claim a sentence is illegal based on an alleged discrepancy between an oral pronouncement and a written sentence ... without a transcript of the sentencing hearing or other indisputable evidence of record to support the claim.” Lopez v. State, 2 So.3d 1057, 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (alterations in or | 5 | 5 |
Nielson v. Stategreen2 sentences2024See Johnson v. State, 60 So. 3d 1045, 1050 (Fla. 2011) (“Under rule 3.800(a), ‘the burden [is on] the petitioner to demonstrate an entitlement to relief on the face of the record.’ The State accordingly has no burden to establish that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.”) (quoting Williams v. State, 957 So. 2d 600, 602 (Fla. 2007)); see also Lopez v. State, 2 So. 3d 1057, 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (“[A] defendant [may not] claim a sentence is illegal based on an alleged discrepancy between an oral pronouncement and a written sentence ... without a transcript of the sentencing hearing or ot 2019Cf. Nielson v. State, 984 So. 2d 587, 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) ("[W]e reject the proposition that a defendant can claim a sentence is illegal based on an alleged discrepancy between an oral pronouncement and a written sentence regarding whether the sentence is concurrent or consecutive to other sentences without a transcript of the sentencing hearing or other indisputable evidence of record to support the claim.").3 Affirmed. | 5 | 5 |
Ashley v. Stategreen2 sentences2009Williams v. State, 957 So.2d 600, 604 (Fla.2007) (citing Ashley v. State, 850 So.2d 1265, 1268 (Fla.2003); Justice v. State, 674 So.2d 123, 126 (Fla.1996)). “[A] defendant [may not] claim a sentence is illegal based on an alleged discrepancy between an oral pronouncement and a written sentence ... without a transcript of the sentencing hearing or other indisputable evidence of record to support the claim.” Nielson v. State, 984 So.2d 587, 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). 2009See Williams v. State, 957 So.2d 600, 603 (Fla.2007) (citing Ashley v. State, 850 So.2d 1265, 1268 (Fla. 2003)) (holding that the sentencing court’s oral pronouncement controls in the event of a discrepancy between oral pronouncement and written sentence); Shands Teaching Hasp. & Clinics, Inc. v. Beech St. | 3 | 4 |
Lopez v. Stategreen2 sentences2024However, the court dismissed Ms. George's motion1 because she failed to support her claim with any record evidence, citing Gomez v. State, 137 So. 3d 1037, 1038 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) ("[A] defendant [may not] claim a sentence is illegal based on an alleged discrepancy between an oral pronouncement and a written sentence . . . without a transcript of the sentencing hearing or other indisputable evidence of record to support the claim." (alterations in original) (quoting Lopez v. State, 2 So. 3d 1057, 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009))). 2024See Johnson v. State, 60 So. 3d 1045, 1050 (Fla. 2011) (“Under rule 3.800(a), ‘the burden [is on] the petitioner to demonstrate an entitlement to relief on the face of the record.’ The State accordingly has no burden to establish that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.”) (quoting Williams v. State, 957 So. 2d 600, 602 (Fla. 2007)); see also Lopez v. State, 2 So. 3d 1057, 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (“[A] defendant [may not] claim a sentence is illegal based on an alleged discrepancy between an oral pronouncement and a written sentence ... without a transcript of the sentencing hearing or ot | 3 | 3 |
Mann v. Stategreen2 sentences2024However, the court dismissed Ms. George's motion1 because she failed to support her claim with any record evidence, citing Gomez v. State, 137 So. 3d 1037, 1038 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) ("[A] defendant [may not] claim a sentence is illegal based on an alleged discrepancy between an oral pronouncement and a written sentence . . . without a transcript of the sentencing hearing or other indisputable evidence of record to support the claim." (alterations in original) (quoting Lopez v. State, 2 So. 3d 1057, 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009))). 2018Finding no error, we affirm.2,3 See Gomez, 137 So. 3d at 1038 (“Although such a claim is cognizable under rule 3.800(a) if the sentencing error may be resolved as a matter of law by merely examining the face of the record, the defendant has not provided us with a record to review. . . . | 2 | 2 |
Beard v. Stategreen2 sentences2016See McLendon v. State, 58 So.3d 387, 388 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) ("[A]s we explained in Beard v. State, 27 So.3d 186 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010), in order for a rule 3.800(a) movant to comply with his special duty to demonstrate entitlement to relief on the face of the record, the lack of a transcript of the sentencing hearing is a gap that must be filled by the movant.... 2011Nevertheless, as we explained in Beard, v. State, 27 So.3d 186 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010), in order for a rule 3.800(a) movant to comply with his special duty to demonstrate entitlement to relief on the face of the record, the lack of a transcript of the sentencing hearing is a gap that must be filled by the movant. | 1 | 2 |
Harvey v. Stategreen2 sentences1984Smith . [1] Accord, Harvey v. State, 450 So.2d 926 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). 1984See Harvey v. State, 450 So.2d 926 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). | 1 | 2 |
Johnson v. Stategreen1 sentence2024See Johnson v. State, 60 So. 3d 1045, 1050 (Fla. 2011) (“Under rule 3.800(a), ‘the burden [is on] the petitioner to demonstrate an entitlement to relief on the face of the record.’ The State accordingly has no burden to establish that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.”) (quoting Williams v. State, 957 So. 2d 600, 602 (Fla. 2007)); see also Lopez v. State, 2 So. 3d 1057, 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (“[A] defendant [may not] claim a sentence is illegal based on an alleged discrepancy between an oral pronouncement and a written sentence ... without a transcript of the sentencing hearing or ot | 1 | 1 |
King v. Stategreen1 sentence2022In King v. State, 86 So. 3d 1247, 1248-49 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012), this court reversed the denial of the defendant's rule 3.800(a) motion for additional jail credit where the written sentence conflicted with the oral pronouncement. | 1 | 1 |
Antoine v. Stategreen1 sentence2019Herrera's questionable admission to the vague group of "technical violations" and his stipulation to the willful and substantial nature of the -5- violations notwithstanding, "a violation will not be deemed willful and substantial if the performance parameters have not been spelled out and sufficient time remains in the probationary period for the probationer to complete the requirement." Matthews, 943 So. 2d at 985 ; see also Antoine v. State, 684 So. 2d 266, 267 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (holding that where "the terms of appellant's obligation to pay court costs are not clear from either the trans | 1 | 1 |
Lewis v. Stategreen1 sentence2018See, e.g., O'Neal v. State, 862 So. 2d 91, 93 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) ("[W]here a trial court finds that a defendant qualifies as a habitual felon, it is not necessary for the -9- trial court to specifically state that it is imposing a habitual offender sentence."); Lewis v. State, 16 So. 3d 1021, 1021 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) ("Having independently reviewed the record, we agree with the State that the transcript of the sentencing hearing . . . clearly demonstrate[s] that the trial court intended to, and did, sentence Lewis as an HFO when the original probationary sentences were imposed."). | 1 | 1 |
O'NEAL v. Stategreen1 sentence2018See, e.g., O'Neal v. State, 862 So. 2d 91, 93 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) ("[W]here a trial court finds that a defendant qualifies as a habitual felon, it is not necessary for the -9- trial court to specifically state that it is imposing a habitual offender sentence."); Lewis v. State, 16 So. 3d 1021, 1021 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) ("Having independently reviewed the record, we agree with the State that the transcript of the sentencing hearing . . . clearly demonstrate[s] that the trial court intended to, and did, sentence Lewis as an HFO when the original probationary sentences were imposed."). | 1 | 1 |
Huddleston v. Stategreen1 sentence2017See Jackson v. State, 64 So. 2d 90, 92 (Fla. 2011). | 1 | 1 |
Brantley v. Stategreen1 sentence2017As we explained in Blocker, although the evidence that the postconviction court cited in its order denying Jackson’s rule 3.800(a) motion provided a reasonable basis to conclude that a factual question existed with regard to the trial court’s oral pronouncement, “such postconviction disputes can be resolved only after an evidentiary hearing.” Blocker, 968 So.2d at 693-94 ; see also Brantley, 32 So.3d at 90 (stating that “[a] careful examination of the record reveals a reasonable basis to question the accuracy of the transcript of the sentencing hearing, thus creating a disputed issue of fact” | 1 | 1 |
Colbert v. Stategreen1 sentence2017See, e.g., Robinson v. State, 141 So.3d 656, 657-58 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (finding ineffective assistance of counsel was apparent from record where, "[a]s can easily be seen from the transcript of the sentencing hearing,” witness would have testified consistently with defendant and inconsistently with victim); Wilkins v. State, 110 So.3d 479, 480 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (noting that burden is on appellant to demonstrate that face of record shows written judgment is incorrect by attaching certified copy of sentencing transcript or plea colloquy transcript). . | 1 | 1 |
Robinson v. Stategreen1 sentence2017See, e.g., Robinson v. State, 141 So.3d 656, 657-58 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (finding ineffective assistance of counsel was apparent from record where, "[a]s can easily be seen from the transcript of the sentencing hearing,” witness would have testified consistently with defendant and inconsistently with victim); Wilkins v. State, 110 So.3d 479, 480 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (noting that burden is on appellant to demonstrate that face of record shows written judgment is incorrect by attaching certified copy of sentencing transcript or plea colloquy transcript). . | 1 | 1 |
McLendon v. Stategreen1 sentence2016See McLendon v. State, 58 So.3d 387, 388 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) ("[A]s we explained in Beard v. State, 27 So.3d 186 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010), in order for a rule 3.800(a) movant to comply with his special duty to demonstrate entitlement to relief on the face of the record, the lack of a transcript of the sentencing hearing is a gap that must be filled by the movant.... | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Stategreen1 sentence2014The trial court declared it was satisfied with the accuracy of the score-sheet with all three contested prior convictions included and sentenced Hughes to 41.4 months, the lowest permissible sentence. ‘When a defendant disputes a prior offense the sentencing court must either re quire the State to produce corroborating evidence of the offense or not consider the offense.” Smith v. State, 714 So.2d 1152, 1153 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). | 1 | 1 |
Santana v. Henrygreen1 sentence2011Attached to the petition are the sentencing documents, as well as a transcript of the sentencing hearing. *1124 Santana v. Henry, 12 So.3d 843, 844-45 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (footnotes omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Andersongreen1 sentence2011Brooks, 969 So.2d at 243 n. 8; State v. Anderson, 905 So.2d 111, 112 (Fla.2005). | 1 | 1 |
Zink v. Stategreen1 sentence2009See, e.g., Zink v. State, 943 So.2d 895, 895 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (“ ‘Here, it is clear from the plea colloquy, the written habitual felony offender finding, and the written sentence, that the trial court intended to, and did, contemporaneously sentence Scanes as a habitual felony offender. *1022 “Magic words” are not necessary to establish what the sentencing court intended.’ ”) (quoting Scanes v. State, 876 So.2d 1238, 1239-40 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 892 So.2d 1014 (Fla.2004)). | 1 | 1 |
Budd v. Stategreen1 sentence2009See id.; Budd v. State, 939 So.2d 1158, 1159 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). | 1 | 1 |
| Justice v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Scanes v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ross v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Enchautegui v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Burgess v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Keirngreen | 1 | 1 |
| Smith v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Raulerson v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Taylor v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bateman v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Martin v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Betancourtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Eutsey v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Adams v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Pendarvis v. Stategreen2 sentences1990Compare Broome; but cf., Pendarvis v. State, 400 So.2d 494 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). 509 So.2d at 1351 . 1987Compare Broome; but cf. Pendarvis v. State, 400 So.2d 494 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). | 2 | 2 |
| Sheffield v. Stateyellow | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
King v. State
green
2 sentences1980King v. State, 369 So.2d 1031 (Fla.4th DCA 1979). 1980King v. State, 369 So.2d 1031 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). | 2 | 1980–1980 |
Matthews v. State
green
1 sentence2019Herrera's questionable admission to the vague group of "technical violations" and his stipulation to the willful and substantial nature of the -5- violations notwithstanding, "a violation will not be deemed willful and substantial if the performance parameters have not been spelled out and sufficient time remains in the probationary period for the probationer to complete the requirement." Matthews, 943 So. 2d at 985 ; see also Antoine v. State, 684 So. 2d 266, 267 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (holding that where "the terms of appellant's obligation to pay court costs are not clear from either the trans | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Richard Leroy Hayes v. State of Florida
green
1 sentence2019Id. (emphasis in original). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Blocker v. State
green
1 sentence2017As we explained in Blocker, although the evidence that the postconviction court cited in its order denying Jackson’s rule 3.800(a) motion provided a reasonable basis to conclude that a factual question existed with regard to the trial court’s oral pronouncement, “such postconviction disputes can be resolved only after an evidentiary hearing.” Blocker, 968 So.2d at 693-94 ; see also Brantley, 32 So.3d at 90 (stating that “[a] careful examination of the record reveals a reasonable basis to question the accuracy of the transcript of the sentencing hearing, thus creating a disputed issue of fact” | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State of Florida v. Dean Alden Shelley
green
1 sentence2017In Shelley, the Florida Supreme Court held that a double jeopardy violation occurred because Shelley’s convictions of solicitation and traveling after solicitation were based on the "same conduct.” 176 So.3d at 918 . . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Brooks v. State
green
1 sentence2011Brooks, 969 So.2d at 243 n. 8; State v. Anderson, 905 So.2d 111, 112 (Fla.2005). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Jean-Marie v. State
green
1 sentence2009We note that the record contains a single community supervision order with four case numbers on it, while in Jean-Marie , the court noted that “[e]ach case number had a separate order of supervision of probation.” 833 So.2d at 870 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Ashley v. State green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Frey v. State green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Manual v. State green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Gonzales v. State green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Robinson v. State green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Williams v. State green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Campbell v. State green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| State v. Anderson neutral | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Bell v. State green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Tripp v. State green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Edler v. State green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Whitehead v. State green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Palmer v. State green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Florida Bar: Amendment to Rules of Criminal Procedure green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| State v. Tait green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Davis v. State green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Gause v. State green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Behar v. Jefferson National Bank at Sunny Isles neutral | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| State v. Gibson red | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Bigbee v. State neutral | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Gideon v. Wainwright green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.