WILLIE LEROY ROYAL, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
The appellate court reviewed a case where a trial judge increased a defendant's sentence after it had already been legally imposed. The court held that a legal sentence cannot be enhanced after it has been imposed, and reinstated the original, lesser sentence.
Yes, the trial court erred in resentencing the appellant to a longer term after a legal sentence had already been imposed. A legal sentence cannot be subsequently enhanced.
“There is no provision in the rules of criminal procedure for the subsequent enhancement of a legal sentence.”
Establishes the lack of legal basis for increasing an already imposed legal sentence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter being found guilty of third-degree murder, the appellant received a five-year sentence. The following day, the trial judge set aside the five-ye…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Correction Of Illegal Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant Willie Leroy Royal appeals a 15-year sentence for third-degree murder. Subsequent to the entry of an order waiving juvenile jurisdiction, an information was filed in circuit court charging appellant with second-degree murder. After trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty of murder in the third degree and the court set sentencing for September 13, 1979. Appellant filed a motion for a new trial, which motion was denied. Sentencing was continued until September 17 in order to have representatives of HRS present. On that date, the trial judge adjudicated appellant guilty of murder in the third degree and imposed a sentence of five years imprisonment. The following day, while appellant’s attorney was unavailable, appellant was brought before the court in the presence of the attorney who had assisted at trial. The court set aside the five-year sentence and imposed the maximum sentence of 15 years, explaining that either the sentence had been misunderstood or the court had been mistaken in imposing the five-year sentence. On September 19, appellant’s trial counsel appeared before the court to be heard on the matter of resentencing. At that time appellant’s counsel made an oral motion to set aside the 15-year sentence. The court denied the motion and reimposed the 15-year sentence.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 provides, (a) that a court may at any time correct an illegal sentence, and (b) that a court may reduce a legal sentence within certain time limits. There is no provision in the rules of criminal procedure for the subsequent enhancement of a legal sentence.
In view of the fact that the original five-year sentence was a legal sentence, the trial judge erred in resentencing appellant to 15 years imprisonment.
For the reasons stated, we hereby set aside the 15-year sentence and remand this cause with instructions for the trial judge to reinstate the original five-year sentence.
BOARDMAN and RYDER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Farber v. State, 409 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…ing, it leaves undisturbed those cases which, bottomed on the assumption that a sentence has already been imposed, hold that the sentence cannot be increased after the hearing at which it is pronounced has been clearly concluded, see Royal v. State, 389 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (Rule 3.800 violated by increase of sentence on the day following conclusion of sentencing hearing); Buckbee v. State, 378 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (court without jurisdiction to increase sentence five months after termination…1 / 2
-
Hinton v. State, 446 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…oted that Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 allows a court at any time to correct an illegal sentence or within certain prescribed times to reduce a legal sentence. The rule does not authorize the increase of a legal sentence. Royal v. State, 389 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).…
-
Cherry v. State, 439 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…les, an increase of a lawful sentence is expressly prohibited by Florida case law, grounded on the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution. See, e.g., Troupe v. Rowe, 283 So. 2d 857 (Fla.1973); Royal v. State, 389 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Gonzalez v. State, 384 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Andrews v. State, 357 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Flowers v. State, 351 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Katz v. State, 335 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). The few instances…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence