TYRONE SCOTT, 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.
Court reversed a 15-year sentence for second-degree grand theft because it exceeded the statutory maximum of 5 years, even though sentencing guidelines suggested 17 years.
A sentence imposed for second-degree grand theft cannot exceed the statutory maximum of five years imprisonment, regardless of what sentencing guidelines recommend.
[1] Sentencing guidelines may not authorize a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum penalty prescribed for an offense.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTyrone Scott was convicted of second-degree grand theft under Florida Statute § 812.014(2)(b) and sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment.…
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 Second Degree Grand Theft cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence for second-degree grand theft as proscribed by Section 812.014(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1985). The defendant Tyrone Scott’s sole point on appeal is that the trial court erred in imposing a sentence in this case of fifteen years imprisonment because the sentence exceeds the maximum penalty on the crime for which the defendant was convicted; the state has filed a confession of error on this point.
Second-degree grand theft, as proscribed by the above statute, is a third-degree felony, § 812.014(2)(b), Fla.Stat. (1985), which, in turn, is punishable by a maximum of five years imprisonment. § 775.082(3)(d), Fla.Stat. (1985). It therefore follows that the sentence of fifteen years imprisonment under review must be reversed; moreover, this result is not changed by the fact that the sentencing guidelines presumptively calls for a maximum sentence of seventeen years imprisonment because a guidelines sentence may not, in any event, exceed the maximum sentence provided by statute for that offense. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(10).
The final judgment of conviction under review is affirmed; the sentence under review is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for resentencing.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.