MICHAEL ALAN SANDERS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 1980-07-30
No. 80-519
COBB and FRANK D. UPCHURCH, JJ., concur.
386 So. 2d 256 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1980) Positive Treatment
Cited by 24 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

Michael Alan Sanders appealed the summary denial of his post-conviction motion challenging a 19-year robbery sentence. The court affirmed the conviction but found the sentence exceeded the statutory maximum for the crime charged, vacating the sentence and remanding for resentencing to reflect the appropriate second-degree felony penalty.


Holding

The court held that reference to the incorrect statute in the indictment did not deprive the court of jurisdiction because the necessary elements of robbery were alleged under either statute. However, the court held that Sanders could only be found guilty of a second-degree felony because the indictment did not charge he was armed, making the 19-year sentence excessive and subject to collateral attack.


Headnotes

[1] A criminal indictment that alleges the necessary elements of a crime is not jurisdictionally defective merely because it refers to a repealed or amended statute, provided…

[2] A sentence imposed in excess of the maximum authorized by law is subject to collateral attack via a motion for post-conviction relief.

Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Key Quotes

“Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, clearly states that a motion for post-conviction relief may assert that the sentence imposed was in excess of the maximum authorized by law. A sentence not authorized by law is always subject to collateral attack.”

Establishes that sentences exceeding statutory maximum can be challenged via post-conviction motion regardless of direct appeal requirements

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Sanders was indicted for robbery under Florida Statute § 813.011 on August 31, 1975, and pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to 19 years imprisonment. Th…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
ORFINGER, Judge.

ORFINGER, Judge.

This appeal questions a summary denial of a motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.

The indictment under which appellant was charged with robbery alleged in pertinent part that Michael Alan Sanders:

“ . . . did not on the 31st day of August, 1975, in Orange County, Florida, in violation of Florida Statute 813.011 unlawfully, by force, violence, assault and putting in fear, rob, steal, and take away from the person and custody of . . ”

another, certain described property. Appellant pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced to imprisonment for nineteen years, less time served.

In his motion for relief, appellant seeks discharge on the ground that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to sentence him because Section 813.011, Florida Statutes (1973) had been amended and transferred to Section 812.13, Florida Statutes (Supp.1974), which became effective July 1,1975 and therefore did not exist on the date the crime was committed. Additionally, appellant asserts that the indictment did not contain language to determine if he was armed with a weapon or unarmed “ . . . therefore being the difference between a felony of the first degree or second degree.”1

Appellant’s contention that the court lacked jurisdiction because the incorrect statute was referred to in the indictment is without merit, because the necessary elements of the crime of robbery were alleged under either statute, so it cannot be said that the indictment wholly failed to allege a crime, and there is no showing that appellant was misled to his prejudice. Sinclair v. State, 46 So. 2d 453 (Fla.1950); Selley v. State, Case No. 78-115/T4-44, Fla. 5th DCA, May 28, 1980; King v. State, 336 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), cert. dismissed, 434 U.S. 802, 98 S.Ct. 30, 54 L.Ed.2d 60 (1977).

By the language of appellant’s pro se motion previously quoted here, it is obvious that he contends that the maximum sentence he could have received was fifteen years for a second-degree felony, and that his sentence of nineteen years exceeds the maximum authorized by law. This point has merit. The State contends that this cannot be raised by a motion for post-conviction relief and that it should have been raised on direct appeal, but Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, clearly states that a motion for post-conviction relief may assert that the sentence imposed was in excess of the maximum authorized by law. A sentence not authorized by law is always subject to collateral attack. Skinner v. State, 366 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).

Since the indictment did not charge that appellant was armed with either a firearm, a deadly weapon or a weapon, he could only be found guilty of a second-degree felony under Section 812.13, Florida Statutes (Supp.1974) and he should have been sentenced accordingly.

The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed insofar as it denies relief as to conviction, but the sentence is hereby set aside. The case is remanded to the trial court to resentence appellant for a second-degree felony, and appellant shall be present before the court for such re-sentencing.

Judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. Sentence SET ASIDE and remanded for resentencing.

COBB and FRANK D. UPCHURCH, JJ., concur. . 812.13, Florida Statutes (Supp.1974), Robbery, more detailed than its predecessor Section 813.011, provides:

(1) “Robbery” means the taking of money or other property which may be the subject of larceny from the person or custody of another by force, violence, assault, or putting in fear. (2)(a) If in the course of committing the robbery the offender carried a firearm or other deadly weapon, then the robbery is a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life imprisonment or as provided in chapter 775.

(b) If in the course of committing the robbery the offender carried a weapon, then the robbery is a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in chapter 775.

(c) If in the course of committing the robbery the offender carried no firearm, deadly weapon or other weapon, then the robbery is a felony of the second degree.

(3)An act shall be deemed “in the course of committing the robbery” if it occurs in an attempt to commit robbery or in flight after the attempt or commission.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By (12 total)

  • B.H. v. State, 645 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 1994)
    …with the district court below that an erroneous reference to a statute in a charging instrument is not fatal to the conviction if the necessary elements of the offense otherwise are properly alleged. B.H., 622 So. 2d at 618 (citing Sanders v. State, 386 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)). The petition charging B.H. with the offense of juvenile escape read as follows: SPECIFICATIONS OF CHARGE: In that [B.H.], on or about the 5th day of March, 1992, at or near Daytona Beach within Volusia County, Florida, did, wh…
  • McMILLAN v. State, 832 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
    …the crimes for which he is being tried. In the instant case, the caption charged armed robbery with a weapon and recited the statute applicable to that crime. These technical defects are not fatal. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.140(d)(1); Sanders v. State, 386 So. 2d 256, 257 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). The determinative questions are whether the information charged every element of the offense of robbery with a firearm and whether it misled McMillan. The specifications of the information alleged each essential element of…
  • B.H. v. State, 622 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
    …nstant conviction should be affirmed based upon the revival of section 39.112. The fact that B.H. was convicted of violating section 39.061, rather than section 39.112, would not be fatal to the conviction based upon our opinion in Sanders v. State, 386 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). In that case we held that when allegations of fact in an accusatorial document are sufficient to allege all of the elements of an offense, such allegations of fact will ordinarily control over an erroneous reference to a statute…

Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw