Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

72 So. 3d 802

White v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided October 19, 2011

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2011-10-19

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently August 2017

3 state decisions

Relies on 698 So. 2d 1349 - Corp. v. State · S.P. v. Florida Department of Children & Family Services

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2011-10-19

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1The appellant has filed a motion seeking clarification of his sentence, which this Court will treat as a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The appellant argues that the sentencing court did not impose two years of probation to follow the 41.1 months of incarceration that both the appellant and the court agree was to be imposed. The lower court has rendered an order which states that in March 2010 when the court sentenced the appellant it did impose two years of probation to follow the 41.1 months of imprisonment. However, the court has not attached either the portion of the sentencing hearing transcript or the judgment and sentence, or any other portion of the record, which conclusively refutes the appellant’s claim.

¶2We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to either attach documentation conclusively refuting the appellant’s claim or to grant him relief. See, e.g., Moore v. State, 17 So.3d 878 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (citing Corp v. State, 698 So.2d 1349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (‘“when denying a cognizable 3.800(a) claim, the trial court must attach portions of the record conclusively refuting that claim’ ”)).

¶3REVERSED AND REMANDED.

BENTON, C.J., VAN NORTWICK, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.
/72/so3d/802 · .json · Public domain