Case Name: Johnny Edward SIMON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2001-02-07
Citations: 793 So. 2d 980
Docket Number: No. 2D00-3703
Parties: Johnny Edward SIMON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: CASANUEVA, J„ and DANAHY, PAUL W., (Senior) Judge, concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 793
Pages: 980–983

Head Matter:
Johnny Edward SIMON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 2D00-3703.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Feb. 7, 2001.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Johnny Edward Simon challenges the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse and remand for further proceedings on Simon's claim that the habitual offender sentence in trial court case number CF91-4339 is illegal because the trial court did not orally sentence him as a habitual offender.
The trial court previously denied this claim, finding that it was procedurally barred because Simon had raised this issue in his appeal from the judgment and sentence. See Simon v. State, 761 So.2d 1219 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). However, to its order summarily denying this claim, the trial court attached only the statement of judicial acts to be reviewed. We reversed and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the statement of judicial acts to be reviewed "does not conclusively demonstrate that the issue was addressed on appeal." Id. at 1220. We also noted that the trial court had not attached the written sentence, so that even though "Simon is correct that the court did not orally sentence him as a habitual offender in case number CF91-4339[,]" we could not determine whether there was a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and the written sentence. Id. at 1219.
On remand, the trial court again denied this claim on the basis that it had been raised on direct appeal. The trial court attached to its order a copy of Simon's initial brief in the direct appeal. A review of Simon's initial brief conclusively demonstrates that Simon did not raise this issue on direct appeal. In his direct appeal, Simon raised two issues. He first argued that the State did not affirmatively prove he had not been granted postconviction relief in one of the two predicate felony convictions necessary for habitualization. In his second issue, Simon argued that the trial court erred in failing to make the statutorily required findings prior to sentencing him as a habitual offender. Nowhere in his initial brief did Simon even allege that there was a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and the written sentence.
A claim that a written sentence fails to comport with the oral pronouncement is properly raised in a rule 3.800(a) motion. See Brooks v. State, 768 So.2d 513 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Where the trial court did not orally sentence a defendant as a habitual offender, the trial court must, upon remand, strike the habitual offender designation from the written sentence. Id. However, the sentence is only illegal if it is over the statutory maximum for that of fense. Id. In the present case, Simon alleges that he received two concurrent twenty-year sentences for two second-degree felonies. Should this be the case, appellant's sentences are illegal to the extent that they exceed the fifteen-year statutory maximum for a second-degree felony. If the written sentences reflect that Simon was sentenced as a habitual offender, the trial court shall on remand strike the habitual offender designations and re-sentence appellant within the statutory maximum should his sentences be outside the statutory maximum. If the written sentences do not reflect habitual offender designations but exceed the statutory maximum, then the trial court shall resentence Simon within the statutory maximum.
Reversed and remanded.
CASANUEVA, J" and DANAHY, PAUL W., (Senior) Judge, concur.
ALTENBERND, A.C.J., Dissents with opinion.
. This court per curiam affirmed Simon's direct appeal. See Simon v. State, 626 So.2d 1379 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).