EZRA LEE WILLIS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Willis appealed his probation revocation and sentence for attempted robbery. The appellate court affirmed the probation revocation but ordered correction to remove an uncharged robbery violation, and vacated the 15-year sentence on the attempted robbery count as exceeding the statutory maximum of 5 years for a third-degree felony, remanding for resentencing.
The probation revocation is affirmed but must be corrected on remand to vacate the attempted robbery violation finding as it was neither charged nor pronounced by the court. The 15-year sentence on Count III must be vacated because attempted robbery (a third-degree felony) is punishable by a maximum of 5 years imprisonment, not 15 years.
[1] A finding of probation violation must be based on an offense alleged in the charging affidavit and found by the court.
[2] A sentence for attempted robbery without the use of a firearm or deadly weapon is limited to the maximum punishment for a third-degree felony.
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“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”
Establishes the applicable sentencing maximum for attempted robbery without a firearm or deadly weapon
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWillis had his probation revoked in Case No. 81-6774 based partly on a finding that he committed attempted robbery, though this offense was not allege…
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 Felony Classification cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The order revoking the defendant’s probation in Circuit Court Case No. 81-6774 must be corrected on remand to vacate the finding of violation of probation based on the commission of the offense of attempted robbery, which offense, although supported by proof, was neither alleged in the charging affidavit nor found to have been committed in the court’s oral pronouncement. As corrected, the order is affirmed.
In Circuit Court Case No. 82-7809, the fifteen-year term of imprisonment imposed on Count III for attempted robbery not involving the use of a firearm or deadly weapon must be vacated as being in excess of the maximum sentence allowed by law. Robbery without the use of a firearm or deadly weapon is a second-degree felony. § 812.13(2)(c), Fla.Stat. (1981). An attempt to commit a felony of the second degree is a third-degree felony, § 777.04(4)(c), Fla.Stat. (1981), punishable by a maximum of five years imprisonment. § 775.082(3)(d), Fla.Stat. (1981).1
The order revoking probation is affirmed. The cause is remanded for the correction of the order revoking probation and, in Circuit Court Case No. 82-7809, for resentencing.
. The State has suggested that upon remand the trial court should be free to impose this five-year sentence on Count III to run consecutively with the fifteen and twenty-five-year terms of imprisonment imposed on Counts I and II. But the trial court's original sentence on Count III was to run concurrently with Counts I and II, thus evincing an intent that a twenty-five year sentence would be the maximum for the three crimes. Unlike the situation in Wright v. State, 429 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), Streeter v. State, 416 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), and Herring v. State, 411 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), where, because our vacation of excessive concurrent sentences effected a change in the trial court's sentencing goal, we permitted the imposition of a consecutive sentence upon remand to allow the original sentencing goal to be accomplished, a consecutive sentence here would exceed the evident original sentencing goal of the trial court and cannot be justified.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Iacono v. State, 452 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…ourt erred by including in its order, as grounds for revocation of probation, the following: that the defendant committed the offense of kidnapping and that he failed to submit monthly reports for February 1981 through January 1982; Willis v. State, 446 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Clark v. State, 442 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Mack v. State, 342 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) (cannot revoke probation based on facts not alleged on the affidavit of violation); that the defendant failed to make cost super…
Authorities Cited
- Murrell Streeter v. State, 416 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Herring v. State, 411 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Wright v. State, 429 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)