DAVID DENNIS, 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 affirmed denial of motion to correct illegal sentence, holding that sentencing disparity between codefendants does not render an otherwise statutory-compliant sentence illegal.
Disparity in sentencing between codefendants does not render an otherwise legal sentence illegal when the sentence falls within statutory limits.
[1] Sentencing disparity between codefendants does not render a sentence illegal under Rule 3.800(a) when the sentence is within statutory limits.
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 intelligenceDefendant was sentenced to 75 years for a 1968 robbery while his codefendant received 25 years; defendant moved to correct the sentence as illegal bas…
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 Sentencing Within Statutory Limits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order denying defendant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Defendant concedes that an earlier motion was made but not appealed, owing to lack of timely notice of the order on the motion.- Assuming arguendo that the present motion is not barred, the trial court properly denied relief. The defendant’s theory is that his 1968 robbery sentence is rendered illegal by the fact that the codefendant received a term of 25 years while defendant received a term of 75 years. Under the principles applicable to a 1968 sentence, disparity in sentencing does not render an otherwise legal sentence illegal. Eaton v. State, 325 So. 2d 420, 421 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); see Stanford v. State, 110 So. 2d 1, 2 & n. 4 (Fla.1969) (“we have adhered to the principle that if a trial judge imposes a sentence that is within the limits defined by statute, the only relief is before the parole authorities”); § 813.011, Fla.Stat. (1965); cf. Alvarez v. State, 358 So. 2d 10, 12 (Fla.1978) (sentence for term of years in excess of life expectancy does not exceed statutory maximum under robbery statute and is not illegal sentence). As defendant was sentenced within the applicable statutory limits, the sentence is legal. See Dallas v. Wainwright, 175 So. 2d 785 (Fla.1965). Relief is not available to defendant under Rule 3.800(a).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Alphonso Alvarez v. State, 358 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1978)
- Stanford v. State, 110 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1959)
- Dallas v. Louie L. Wainwright, 175 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 1965)
- Eaton v. State, 325 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)