Durant v. State
2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 15005
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- Nathaniel Durant was convicted in May 2009 of lewd and lascivious touching of a child and sentenced to imprisonment and extended sex‑offender probation; the written sentence included fees and costs.
- Approximately five years later Durant filed a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion asserting the written order imposed costs and fees that were not orally pronounced, arguing the discrepancy made the sentence "illegal."
- The trial court summarily denied the motion relying on Walden v. State, holding such cost errors are not cognizable under rule 3.800(a).
- Durant appealed, arguing this court’s earlier decision in Strickland v. State permitted correction under rule 3.800(a); the State urged recision of Strickland.
- The court reviewed the meaning of "illegal sentence" under rule 3.800(a) (a narrow category of fundamental errors that no judge could lawfully impose) and distinguished those from broader sentencing errors correctable under rule 3.800(b).
- The court concluded that erroneous imposition of fees and costs (including failure to orally pronounce them) are sentencing errors for rule 3.800(b), not "illegal sentences" under rule 3.800(a), and therefore receded from Strickland and affirmed the denial of Durant’s motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether assessment of fees/costs not orally pronounced can be corrected as an "illegal sentence" under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a) | Durant: Written costs differing from oral pronouncement render the sentence illegal and correctable under 3.800(a) | State/Trial court: Improperly assessed costs are sentencing errors, not illegal sentences; such claims fall under 3.800(b) | Court: Not an illegal sentence; recedes from Strickland and holds these errors belong to 3.800(b) (affirmed) |
| Whether Strickland v. State should remain controlling | Durant relied on Strickland to support 3.800(a) relief | State asked this court to recede from Strickland as inconsistent with Florida Supreme Court precedent | Court receded from Strickland to the extent it treated cost errors as "illegal sentences" under 3.800(a) |
| Proper definition/scope of "illegal sentence" under rule 3.800(a) | Durant: broad reading to include sentencing components like costs | State: narrow reading—only fundamental illegality that no judge could impose | Court: Adopts narrow, Supreme Court‑aligned definition: fundamental errors (e.g., sentence exceeding legal maximum) only |
| Availability of relief long after finality when costs are unauthorized | Durant: relief needed even years later if written order imposes larger costs than orally pronounced | State: late challenges to cost errors should be channeled through 3.800(b) or other remedies | Court: Late correction of costs is governed by 3.800(b); 3.800(a) unlimited time reserved for truly illegal sentences |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 957 So.2d 600 (Fla. 2007) (discrepancy between oral and written sentence may be cognizable under rule 3.800(a))
- Wright v. State, 911 So.2d 81 (Fla. 2005) (defines "illegal sentence" as one no judge could lawfully impose; illegality must be fundamental)
- Jackson v. State, 983 So.2d 562 (Fla. 2008) (distinguishes errors correctable under rule 3.800(b), including improper assessment of costs)
- Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89 (Fla. 2000) (explains narrower class of "illegal sentence" compared to "fundamental error" and treats unauthorized costs as sentencing errors)
- Walden v. State, 112 So.3d 578 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (holds imposition of costs, even if not orally pronounced, is not an "illegal sentence" and is remedied under rule 3.800(b))
- Strickland v. State, 56 So.3d 906 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (previously treated cost discrepancies as cognizable under 3.800(a); this court receded from that holding)