Title: Wilmann Renaud v. State Of Florida
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC05-1005
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: March 31, 2006

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC05-1005 
____________ 
 
WILMANN RENAUD,  
Petitioner, 
 
vs. 
 
STATE OF FLORIDA,  
Respondent. 
 
[March 23, 2006] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
We initially accepted jurisdiction to review Renaud v. State, 901 So. 2d 
1032 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), a decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal 
certifying conflict with the decisions in Fitzpatrick v. State, 863 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 
1st DCA 2004), and Berthiaume v. State, 864 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).  
See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.  Upon further consideration, we have now 
determined that jurisdiction was improvidently granted.  A requirement for relief 
under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) is “that the court records 
demonstrate on their face an entitlement to . . . relief.”  Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a).  
This rule does not contemplate the necessity of an evidentiary hearing.  In the 
 
 
- 2 -
instant matter there was no increase in a sentence entered subsequent to the date 
the oral sentence was imposed and the date the defendant had begun serving the 
sentence which would implicate a facial double jeopardy violation or illegal 
sentence apparent on the face of the record.  The oral pronouncement of sentence 
and the written sentencing order were imposed at the same hearing.  Therefore, 
Renaud’s claim is not cognizable under a rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal 
sentence on the face of the record.  When the alleged illegality of the sentence is 
not apparent on the face of the record, a rule 3.850 motion is the only available 
remedy.  Unlike the present case, in both Fitzpatrick and Berthiaume the courts 
considered facial double jeopardy and illegal sentence implications under the facts 
presented.   
Renaud failed to present this substantive issue in his initial rule 3.850 
motion.  Therefore, the Fourth District was correct in dismissing Renaud’s claim as 
a successive rule 3.850 motion which is procedurally barred.  Accordingly, this 
review proceeding is dismissed due to no actual conflict. 
It is so ordered. 
 
PARIENTE, C.J., and WELLS, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., 
concur. 
ANSTEAD, J., dissents. 
 
 
NO MOTION FOR REHEARING WILL BE ALLOWED. 
 
 
 
 
- 3 -
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal - Certified 
Direct Conflict of Decisions 
 
 
Fourth District - Case No. 4D05-1527 
 
 
(Broward County) 
 
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, Margaret Good-Earnest and Jeffrey Golant, 
Assistant Public Defenders, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, West Palm Beach, Florida, 
 
 
for Petitioner 
 
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida,  Melanie Dale Surber 
and Celia A. Terenzio, Assistant Attorneys General, West Palm Beach, Florida, 
 
 
for Respondent