Skip to main content

Daniels v. State

Citations

  • 118 So. 3d 996
  • 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 12791
  • 2013 WL 4106698

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that a discrepancy between the oral sentence pronouncement and the written judgment and sentence could not be corrected where the appellant did not preserve the sentencing error
  • “Claims that the written judgment and sentence do not conform to the oral pronouncement must be preserved either with a contemporaneous objection, if possible, or by filing a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion before filing the initial brief.”
  • declining to review an unpreserved sentencing error on direct appeal
  • “Claims that the written judgment and sentence do not conform to the oral pronouncement must be preserved either with a 2 contemporaneous objection, if possible, or by filing a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion before filing the initial brief.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Clark, Nortwick, Osterhaus

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.