Auriemma v. State
Auriemma v. State
Opinion of the Court
In this Anders
“A written sentence that conflicts with the oral pronouncement of sentence imposed in open court is an illegal sentence.” Beard v. State, 27 So.3d 186, 187 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (citing Williams v. State, 957 So.2d 600, 603 (Fla. 2007)). “When a discrepancy exists, the oral pronouncement of sentence controls over the written” sentence. Id. Nevertheless, “sentencing errors that occur after the effective date of the amendments to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) ... cannot be reviewed by an appellate court if, as here, the issue was not raised at sentencing or in a timely post-sentencing procedure pursuant to rule 3.800.” Dunbar v. State, 35 So.3d 54, 55 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). The judgments and sentences are therefore affirmed without prejudice to either party filing a motion in Case No. 2013-102199-CF pursuant to. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). See id.
AFFIRMED.
. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.