Case Name: Cynthia Ann DAWSON/KNAPP, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1997-03-21
Citations: 698 So. 2d 266
Docket Number: No. 96-03632
Parties: Cynthia Ann DAWSON/KNAPP, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: FRANK, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 698
Pages: 266–267

Head Matter:
Cynthia Ann DAWSON/KNAPP, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 96-03632.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
March 21, 1997.
Rehearing Denied May 29,1997.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Cynthia Knapp challenges the trial court's denial of her motion to correct an illegal sentence. On May 18, 1992, the trial court sentenced Knapp in four cases. The transcript of the sentencing hearing discloses that the trial court structured Knapp's sentences so that she received a total of twenty-two years in prison in the first two cases. The transcript further reflects that she was sentenced to five years' imprisonment on each count in the remaining two eases. The sentences in the latter cases were to run concurrently with each other and concurrently with the sentences imposed in the first two cases. Knapp alleges that the sentencing documents in ease number 86-14764 indicate she was sentenced to five years on each count to run consecutively to her initial sentences rather that concurrently. She asserts that the trial court's oral pronouncement contemplated a concurrent sentence in case number 86-14764. The trial court's order denying Knapp's motion to correct an illegal sentence does not respond to this issue, nor did the trial court attach any document in case number 86-14764 reflecting the May 18, 1992, sentencing.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to consider the merits of the contention raised in Knapp's motion. See Williams v. State, 676 So.2d 11 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Sellers v. State, 591 So.2d 331 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). If the trial court determines that it is without merit, it must attach those portions of the record that refute Knapp's claim of failure to follow the trial court's oral sentencing pronouncement.
FRANK, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.
PARKER, J., dissents with opinion.