NEILSEN ARELEN WILHELM, 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.
Wilhelm appealed the trial court's denial of a motion to correct illegal sentences. On appeal, Wilhelm challenged a modified sentence that the trial court imposed sua sponte when correcting illegal sentences on other counts. The court held that while the trial court properly eliminated illegal sentences, it improperly modified a legal sentence without authority under the applicable rules.
The trial court properly eliminated the illegal sentences under Rule 3.800(a) but improperly modified the legal sentence on count II. Modifying a legal sentence is not authorized under Rule 3.800(a) because that rule permits correction of illegal sentences only, and it is not authorized under Rule 3.800(b) because the modification occurred well beyond the 60-day window allowed under that rule.
[1] A court may correct an illegal sentence at any time pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
[2] A trial court cannot sua sponte modify a legal sentence under the authority granted by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
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“Pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), a court may correct an illegal sentence at any time.”
Establishes the general rule allowing unlimited time to correct illegal sentences under Rule 3.800(a).
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilhelm was convicted on four counts: two counts of manslaughter by intoxication and two counts of manslaughter by culpable negligence, arising from a…
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 Intoxication cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Judge.
Mr. Wilhelm appeals the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence. We reverse the trial court because it improperly modified a legal sentence on one count while correctly eliminating illegal sentences on two other counts.
Mr. Wilhelm was charged with two counts of manslaughter by intoxication and two counts of manslaughter by culpable negligence arising out of an automobile accident which resulted in the death of two individuals. He was convicted and sentenced on the four separate counts. On each of the two counts of manslaughter by intoxication, the trial court sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment to run concurrently. On each of the two counts of manslaughter by culpable negligence, the trial court sentenced him to fifteen years’ probation to run concurrently, but consecutively to the prison terms.
Approximately one year later, on Mr. Wilhelm’s motion to correct illegal sentence as to the last two counts, the trial court correctly determined that those sentences were illegal and should be set aside. See Houser v. State, 474 So. 2d 1193 (Fla.1985); State v. Gibron, 478 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). The trial court ordered that the sentence imposed on the last two counts be “merged” with those imposed on the first two counts. The trial court then, sua sponte, set aside the sentence of seven years’ imprisonment originally imposed on one of the first counts and instead resen-tenced Mr. Wilhelm to fifteen years’ probation on that count.
Pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), a court may correct an illegal sentence at any time. In the instant matter the court properly concluded that the sentences on the last two counts were illegal and, pursuant to rule 3.800(a), found that the sentences should be set aside.
The trial court, however, improperly proceeded to modify the legal sentence rendered on one of the remaining counts. The trial court’s modification was not valid under rule 3.800(a) because the underlying sentence was legal and the rule extends the authority to change a sentence at any time only if the sentence is illegal. Jennings v. State, 478 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), review denied, 488 So. 2d 68 (Fla.1986). In addition, the trial court’s modification was not valid under rule 3.800(b) because the modification was made well beyond the sixty days allowed under that rule. Id. at 1110.
This matter is reversed and remanded to the trial court with directions to reinstate the concurrent sentence of seven years’ imprisonment originally imposed on count II.
CAMPBELL, C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Maybin v. State, 884 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…addressed the merits of this particular claim. Therefore, the trial court erred in denying it as successive. In 1996, the trial court lacked authority to mitigate Maybin’s sentence because the motion to mitigate was untimely. See Wilhelm v. State, 543 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). However, the State failed to seek review of this order by filing a petition for writ of certiorari in this court. See State v. Williams, 780 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); State v. Swett, 772 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Afte…
-
Ruffin v. State, 589 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…6 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1980), the Second District held that where the original five year sentence for a defendant convicted of third degree murder was a legal sentence, the trial court erred in resentencing defendant to 15 years. See also Wilhelm v. State, 543 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1989) (motion to correct illegal sentences, made approximately one year after sentencing, did not give trial court authority to modify legal sentences that had been rendered on other counts); McKinley v. State, 519 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 5t…
-
Seago v. State, 627 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…unts as follows: count II five years prison; count III time served; count IV five years consecutive; and count V two years consecutive. The resentencing took place two and a half years after the original sentencing. This court in Wilhelm v. State, 543 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), held that a trial court, when correcting an illegal sentence on one count of an information, does not have the authority to modify legal sentences that have been rendered on the other counts. See also Lane v. State, 627 So. 2d 55…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ramsey v. State, 474 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1985)
- Houser v. State, 474 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1985)
- Kirkland v. Fla. Dep't of Corr., 2006 WL 3755195 (N.D. Fla. 2024)
- State v. Gibron, 478 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Jennings v. State, 478 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)