CURTIS VON WOODARD, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA PAROLE AND PROBATION COMMISSION, 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.
Curtis Von Woodard appealed the Florida Parole and Probation Commission's assignment of a presumptive parole release date, claiming the Commission used the wrong severity classification of his robbery offense in calculating his matrix time range. The court affirmed, holding that the Commission properly construed Woodard's conviction as robbery with a deadly weapon (first degree felony) based on the charging information and commitment documents, despite ambiguity in the judgment and sentence.
The Commission was justified in construing Woodard's conviction as robbery with use of a deadly weapon other than a firearm in violation of § 812.13(2)(a), a first degree felony punishable by life imprisonment. The ambiguity in the judgment and sentence was resolved by reference to the charging information and commitment documents, which clearly specified the first degree felony classification.
[1] A parole commission must determine the degree of felony or misdemeanor of the present offense of conviction when calculating a matrix time range.
[2] A judgment and sentence that does not specify the degree of a robbery conviction may be clarified by reference to the charging information and commitment order.
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“the Commission to determine 'the degree of felony or misdemeanor of the present offense of conviction.'”
Establishes the statutory requirement that governs the Commission's determination of offense severity for parole matrix calculations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWoodard was convicted and entered a plea of nolo contendere to robbery. The judgment and sentence provided for a fifteen-year sentence and recited the…
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 Plea Agreement Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
NIMMONS, Judge.
Curtis Von Woodard appeals from the Florida Parole and Probation Commission’s assignment of a presumptive parole release date. Woodard claims that the Commission used the wrong severity of offense of conviction in calculating his matrix time range. Florida Administrative Code Rule 23-21.-09(2) requires the Commission to determine “the degree of felony or misdemeanor of the present offense of conviction.” Woodard claims that he was convicted of robbery without the use of any weapon, a second degree felony under § 812.13(2)(c), Florida Statutes. The Commission claims that he was convicted of robbery with the use of a deadly weapon other than a firearm, a first degree felony punishable by a maximum term of life imprisonment under § 812.13(2)(a).
The judgment and sentence, which provided for a sentence of fifteen years, recited that Woodard entered a plea of nolo contendere to the offense of “robbery without firearm.” The judgment and sentence does not specify whether the conviction was for robbery with the use of a deadly weapon other than a firearm, robbery with the use of a non-deadly weapon (a first degree felony punishable by a maximum of thirty years imprisonment) or robbery without the use of any weapon (a second degree felony punishable by a maximum of fifteen years imprisonment); nor does the judgment and sentence contain any statutory reference indicating the applicable “degree” of robbery.1 However, unlike the case which was before us in Bennett v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 422 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), the information charged Woodard with carrying “a firearm or other deadly weapon” and alleged § 812.13(2)(a), Florida Statutes, as the applicable section. Moreover, the commitment issued pursuant to § 944.17, Florida Statutes, recites that Woodard was sentenced under § 812.-13(2)(a).
Under the above circumstances, the Commission was justified in construing Woodard’s conviction to be that of robbery with the use of a deadly weapon other than a firearm in violation of § 812.13(2)(a), a first degree felony punishable by a maximum term of life imprisonment. Woodard claims that this is contrary to his understanding of his plea agreement. If so, he is at liberty to seek redress through an appropriate motion to vacate in the trial court pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850.
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur. . This is one of the principal reasons for the Florida Supreme Court’s amendment of Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.986 by adopting a new judgment and sentence form which requires specification of the name of the crime, the specific statutory reference and the degree of crime. In Re Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 408 So. 2d 207 (Fla.1981). The sentence in the case sub judice antedates the October 31, 1981, effective date of the above amendment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Green v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 555 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…1.009(5). See Taylor v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 543 So. 2d 367, 368 fn. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Everson v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission, 431 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Woodard v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 429 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Walsh v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 422 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Faucett v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 413 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Faucett v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission p…
Authorities Cited
- In re Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 408 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 1981)
- Bennett v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 422 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)