Stangarone v State, Case No 4D11-1853
Aug 01, 2012OUTCOME: Affirmed with leave to seek further relief in the trial court.
Appellant applied to DHSMV for a hardship permit for 4 or more DUI convictions based on amendment to Section 322.271(5), which went into effect 10/1/10. DHSMV denied the permit because the last DUI con ... viction in 1995 did not specify that the permanent revocation was mandatory for DUI under Section 322.28(2)(e)(1993). Stangarone applied to the trial court to correct or clarify the sentence under Rule 3.800(a). The trial cort denied the motion claiming that the permanent revocation was not "illegal" even though it did not set forth the reason for revocation and the only possible basis for revocation was for a fourth offense DUI conviction. The Fourth DCA issued its opinion on 8/1/12 affirming the trial court, but specifically allowed Stangarone to move for relief on the basis that the written judgement does not conform to the sentence which was orally pronounced back in 1995. Stangarone has filed a motion in the Martin County Circuit Court seeking to conform the written sentence to the oral pronouncement. If the trial court refuses to conform the written plea, the Stangarone is requesting to withdraw his plea on the basis that the original sentencing judge told him he could withdraw the plea if, for any reason, he could not follow the plea agreement which specified a permanent DUI revocation. The motion in pending in the circuit court.