.. Loading ..

Unfortunately, the trial court’s denial of the motion was affirmed.

NIELSON v. STATE OF FLORIDA

984 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2008). Mr. Nielsen was convicted of several different offenses for events occurring over a five-year span. He alleged that the sentencing court orally imposed his sentences to run concurrently to earlier sentences he was serving and that the written sentences were illegal because they did not indicate that the sentences were to run concurrently. The Florida Department of Corrections (DOC) calculated his sentences consecutively under § 921.16(1), Fla. Stat. (1983), which provided that sentences of imprisonment for offenses not charged in the same information were served consecutively unless the trial court specified otherwise. Neither Mr. Nielsen nor the trial court could obtain a transcript of the sentencing hearing, which occurred 16 years earlier. The appellate court held that the inmate’s recollection of events at the sentencing hearing were not legally sufficient to create a claim that his written sentence was illegal. The trial court did not have to create new documents to disprove the inmate’s allegations. On the face of the record, the written sentences were legal sentences. Therefore, under § 921.16(1), the DOC properly calculated the sentences to be served consecutively. Unfortunately, the trial court’s denial of the motion was affirmed. Winter Haven Criminal Defense Attorney Brandon J. Rafool personally handled all stages of the appeal for Mr. Nielsen.