PER CURIAM.
The Appellant challenges the postconviction court's summary denial of his rule 3.850 postconviction motion. Because the Appellant's third claim that his written judgment does not comport with the oral pronouncement is facially sufficient, we reverse. All other issues are affirmed without further discussion.
The Appellant claims his sentence is illegal because the sentencing judge did not orally pronounce that the sentence was a habitual felony...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
