Skip to main content

Williams v. State

Citations

  • 957 So. 2d 600
  • 2007 WL 1437456

How courts have described this case

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

  • recognizing that the court’s oral pronouncement of a sentence controls over an inconsistent written sentencing document
  • holding that under rule 3.800(a) the burden is on the defendant to demonstrate an entitlement to relief on the face of the record and without an evidentiary hearing
  • concluding “that a discrepancy between oral and written sentence is cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) proceeding”
  • holding a claim alleging a discrepancy between an oral and written sentence that can be resolved by the record is cognizable at any time under rule 3.800(a)
  • explaining that “a court’s oral pronouncement of a sentence controls over the written sentencing document,” but that “no court has the authority” to enter a “written sentence that conflicts with the oral pronouncement”
  • reversing a trial court denial of a motion to correct illegal sentence based upon the court clerk’s minutes

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Per Curiam

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

139 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

31 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

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.